9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng views. Non consideration of the decision which appear to cover the petitioner's case does indicate a flaw in the decision making process warranting interfere in our writ jurisdiction - we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7 September 2012 passed by the Government of India in revision under Section 35EE of the Act and restore the issue to the file of Government of India in revision for fresh disposal - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lished by supporting collateral documents such as Shipping Bill, Mate receipt, Bill of landing etc. The production of original and duplicate copies of ARE1 was held to be a procedural and not a mandatory requirement. 5) The Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi preferred a Revision application under Section 35EE of the Act to Government of India against the order dated 20 September 2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6) By the impugned order dated 7 September 2012 the Government of India in Revision allowed the application of the Commissioner of Central Excise and restored the order passed by the adjudicating authority namely Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 26 March 2010 rejecting the claim for rebate. The impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te copies of the ARE1 were lost. The collateral evidence was permitted to be led before the lower authorities to establish the export of the goods. In view of the above, there was no reason for the Revisional authority to come to a different conclusion in the petitioner's case. 8) As against the above, Mr. Suhas Oka, learned Counsel for the revenue in support of the impugned order submits that the impugned order calls for no interference as there is no provision to establish the export on the basis of collateral documentary evidence in Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rule,2002. This was contested as in case of goods exported under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 under bond permits collateral evidence of export of goods unlike go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ragraph 5.4. However, the impugned order does not consider the decision in Garg Tex Fab Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and point out why the same is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Counsel appearing for the revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing features in the present case from that existing in the case of Garg Tex Fab Pvt. Ltd (supra). 10) We do note that there are other decisions of the Government of India on identical fact situation, where the rebate claim has been disallowed. Nevertheless there must be an attempt to reconcile the differing views. Non consideration of the decision which appear to cover the petitioner's case does indicate a flaw in the decision making process warranting interfere in our writ jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
