9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-II, Jaipur. M/s. Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur is the respondent in this case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of menthol powder, menthol crystal, DMO and menthol oil. The applicant had filed rebate claim of Rs. 14,23,866/- in respect of goods exported under ARE-1 No. KAIZEN/2006-07/08 dated 24-6-2006. On examination of the rebate claim it has been noticed that the respondent had cleared the goods from their factory for export describing the same as "menthol powder" in the ARE-1 No. KAIZEN/2006-07/08, dated 24-6-2006 and invoice No. E-08, dated 24-6-2006, whereas, description in commercial invoice, Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading filed at the port of export has been shown as "Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as shown in the export invoice. Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading and Packing list filed by the assessee at the time of export. 4.2 The commercial invoice was prepared and signed by the assessee themselves and not by the clearing agent. The Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading were prepared accordingly as per the details mentioned in export commercial invoice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into consideration the difference in the description of goods mentioned in the documents submitted to the Central Excise Officers after removal of the goods from the factory i.e. ARE-1 & Excise invoice as compared to the export documents namely Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading, Export Commercial Invoice and Packing List. 4.3 The rebate claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds and the same was exported in the consignment in dispute. 5.3 The ground for this current Revision Application of the department is based only on a bald allegation of difference in description in the export documents vis-a-vis invoice under which it was cleared from the factory. The respondents would like to reiterate that it is only a case of mentioning the letters BP/USP standards. The contents of the consignments are exactly the same as it was when they left the factory. There is no dispute about this factual position. Mere minor change in the description of the goods exported in the export documents would no disentitle the legitimate export benefit available to the respondents. The respondents rely on the case Re : Cotfab Expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the seals were intact and verified all the documents. Only thereafter, the customs authorities issued the "let export" order and the goods were exported. Therefore, they cannot now claim that the goods manufactured by the respondents were not exported. 5.6 The respondents cleared their goods from their factory on 26-6-2006 against the said ARE-1 form in which the goods have been described as Menthol Powder. Subsequently, on the strength of the Export invoice E-08 dated 24-6-2006 and the said ARE-1 form, the goods were exported vide the above Shipping Bill wherein it happened to describe the goods as Menthol Powder BP/USP. In the ARE-1 No. KAIZEN/2006-07/08 dated 24-6-2006 and Excise Invoice No. E-08 dated 24-6-2006, which is also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 7063098 dated 26-6-2006, wherein the description was mentioned as "Menthol Powder-BP/USP, TMP>97%". The original Authority held that the goods exported were exactly not the same, which were cleared vide the relevant ARE-1 and accordingly, he rejected the rebate claim. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who decided the case in the favour of the respondent. Commissioner (Appeals) mainly held that relevant ARE-1 was endorsed by the Customs authorities certifying that the goods covered by the ARE-1 was exported vide relevant Shipping Bill. 9. From perusal of records, it is observed that in this case of stated exports of goods manufactured by the respondent herein and the description of goods given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchant exporter namely Sharp Menthol India Ltd. they were not required to hold an independent drug licence. In that case M/s. Sharp Menthol India Ltd., were holding proper drug licence and they themselves were exporting the goods. In the instant case, the respondent were not having any drug licence to manufacture Menthol Powder. 12. In view of the above discussion and findings, Government observes that the respondent has failed to establish that they have exported the very same duty paid goods vide shipping bill as cleared by ARE-1, hence, rebate claims not admissible. Government thus, sets aside the Order-in-Appeal and uphold the impugned Order-in-Original. 13. Revision Application thus succeeds on the above terms. 14. So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
