9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that goods are exported said shipping bill No. After the said customs certification, customs will hand over original copy to the exporter and send the duplicate copy either by post or handover to exporter in a sealed cover for submission before rebate sanctioning authority. In this case the duplicate copy has not reached the rebate sanctioning authority. But the original copies of ARE-1 is submitted. The same customs certification confirming the export of goods is available on original ARE-1. The non-submission of duplicate copy of ARE-1 being a procedural lapse cannot be a ground for denying the substantial benefit of rebate claim. However, the original authority could have made correspondence with the SEZ Customs authority to either ascer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate copy of ARE-1 to be received from the authorized officer, in tamper proof sealed cover through applicants, as stipulated in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad-II Division vide impugned Order-in-Original rejected all the seven rebate claims totally amounting to ₹ 5,34,173/- under the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to non-receipt of said duplicate copies of ARE-1. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /legitimate rebate claim. There has been a plethora of judgments that substantial benefit cannot be denied on ground of technical/procedural lapses. In the present case there is gross negligence on the part of the Revenue department. 4.3 The applicant respectfully submits that impugned order has been passed without application of mind and without appreciating that requisite documents were provided by the assessee which are necessary for the processing and allowing the rebate claim which includes copies of ARE-1s, Self Attested Copies of Cenvat Account (RG-23A PART-II), Register showing the debit entries of the duty paid, excise invoice, commercial invoice, packing list, purchase order and relevant ledger abstract. Receipt of these docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper may be upheld. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that applicant s rebate claims were rejected by the original authority mainly on the ground that the applicant had failed to submit duplicate copy of ARE-1 from the authorized officer of the SEZ evidencing the re-warehousing/receipt of goods in the SEZ. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para 4 above. 8. Government observes that as per procedure, the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 duly completed in all respects is presented to the Customs along with goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
