9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present petition, in nutshell, are as under :- 2.01. That the petitioner filed rebate claim of Rs. 2,76,040/- in respect of duty paid goods exported to Germany under ARE-1 No.48/08-09 dated 10/2/2009. On scrutiny of the documents of the petitioner it was found that the petitioner did not submit the copy of the ARE-1 (original copy duly certified by the Customs Authority) and invoice (duplicate copy of transport, in original). It was also found that even the Division Office neither received duplicate copy of the said ARE-1 (in original) and duly authorised by the Customs Authority of the Port of Customs nor the same were submitted by the petitioner in a sealed cover. On perusal of the shipping bill, it was found that there was endorsement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution of India. 3.00 Mr.Nirav Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that all the authorities below have materially erred in rejecting the rebate claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not followed the procedure which was required to be followed under Rule 18 more particularly of not submitting Original ARE-1. Relying upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of SPL Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India, reported in 2013 (294) ELT 188 (P&H) and decision of this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Union of India, reported in 2012 (280) ELT 507 (Gujarat). It is submitted that on the basis of the other material o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable to the facts of the case on hand. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5.00 Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner claimed rebate of Rs. 2,76,040/- in respect of which duty paid goods exported to Germany under ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009. It was the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner exported the goods under Shipping Bill No.7074421. However, on verification and/or on scrutiny of the documents submitted by the petitioner, it was observed that the petitioner did not submit the original copy of the ARE-1 duly certified by the Customs Authority and Invoice (duplicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and on the basis of material on record, when all the authorities below have rejected the rebate claim of the petitioner by observing that the petitioner has not exported the goods of ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009 under Shipping Bill No.7074421, we see no reason to interfere with the same in exercise of the power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to hereinabove shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the same shall not be of any assistance to the petitioner. 6.00 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and the same d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
