9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been the policy of the Government and it is the spirit of these backgrounds that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sharif-ud-Din. Abdul Gani - [1979 (11) TMI 225 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that distinction between required forms and other declarations of compulsory nature and/or simple technical nature is to be judiciously done. When non-compliance of said requirement leads to any specific/odd consequences then it would be difficult to hold that requirement as non-mandatory. Government finds itself in conformity with the opinion of lower authorities and holds that export of said goods is not proved, Government, therefore holds that preparation of statutory requirement of stipulated ARE-1 and following the basic procedure of compliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original Applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant, herein has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 4.1 The Applicant submits that they prepared ARE-1 and sent it to their vendor but they refused to sign it due to their company s policy. 4.2 The Applicant submits that on 4-6-2007 they wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise enclosing copy of Form H received from Sales Tax to prove that they had exported the goods. Since as per Chapter 7, Part II Serial No. 4.1.2, of CBEC s Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions in case of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions/judgment mentioned in the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has considered the relevant case records including written submissions and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government notes that this case matter is of 1st availed and then demanded back of said Export benefit (availed by way of procured CT-I against B-I bond) of duty of Central Excise involved in respect of impugned disputed status of export goods. In this case, the ARE-I was not prepared and applicant failed to follow the prescribed procedure. 8. In reference to above, Government analyze the statutory status and requirements of the Form ARE-I . Government notes that condition 3(iv) (Procedures) for claiming rebate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of duty were actually exported. Since the identity of goods cleared from factory with those exported cannot be established, the duty paid nature of exported goods is not proved because there is no certified and legally acceptable document which can replace the above requirement so as to keep track and check the required bona fide use of CT-Is herein as issued under bindings of the relevant B-I Bond. Moreover the description of goods as given in Shipping Bill does not match with description given in Invoice/CT-I. 9. From above, Government is of the opinion that nature of above requirement is vital as statutory condition of compulsory requirement of submitting the correct and proper ARE-1 copies is a must because such leniencies led to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
