9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se documents can be considered and accepted as the same are not questioned by lower authorities with regard to their authenticity. Therefore since the substantial evidences of co-relatability are there, the rebate should not be denied for minor procedural lapses as held by this authority in case of COTFAB Exports [2005 (11) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA]. - Decided in favor of assessee. Regarding penalty - Held that:- Applicant had not complied with certain procedural requirements including that of not properly submitting copies of impugned ARE-1s well within 24 hrs. of stated clearances. So the applicant is rightly held liable to penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Government therefore upholds the penalty imposed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter due process of adjudication the said Show Cause Notice was confirmed by the impugned Order-in-Original to the extent of demand of duty liability of ₹ 1,07,532/- with interest and penalty of ₹ 2000/- only. 3. On being aggrieved with the said order the applicant have filed before Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant party has filed these revision applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 4.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the legal position that when the goods are exported by a merchant-exporter and when the Bond is execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission and the impugned Orders-in-Original/Orders-in-Appeal. 7. Government notes that in the case matter the applicant is stated to have made exports against five different ARE-1 Nos. 14 to 18 in respect of which relevant Show Cause Notice was issued for demanding duty basically on the points of not following the proper procedure as per Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 read with Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and for not submitting proof of export. The original authority found the proof of export in order in respect of ARE-1 No. 15, 17 18 and therefore dropped the demand pertaining to said ARE-1 forms. However he was not satisfied with the authenticity of documentary proof of export in respect of ARE-1 No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport in respect of ARE-1 No. 14 16 as submitted by the applicant should be considered and verified for ascertaining whether it is a valid proof of export. 9. From perusal of said copies of document of export clearances, Government finds that there is indeed a co-relatability between impugned ARE- is, Excise Invoice, Export Invoice, Shipping Bills, Bill of Ladings and mate receipts as there is a cross reference of ARE-1 No./Shipping Bill/Invoice No. in these documents and descriptions of goods tally with the Central Excise Invoice. There is a customs certification on the reverse of ARE-1 form stating that goods were exported vide said Shipping Bills. 10. Government therefore after considering the submission of the applicant about so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
