9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleted. As such, demand of duty is not sustainable for aforesaid reasons. However, such verification has been done on the basis of copies of documents submitted by the applicants. Hence, the original authority is required to carry out necessary verification on the basis of original documents either available with applicants or submitted to the department by the applicants as claimed by them by virtue of acknowledgement of receipt of such documents. - The shipping bill Nos. mentioned in excise invoice and export invoice tallies with the shipping marks mentioned in the relevant bill of lading. Further, the quantity/weight, description of excise invoice tallies with quantity/weight and description mentioned in the export invoices. However the amount mentioned in export invoices does not tally exactly with amount mentioned in the relevant remittance documents. The applicants is required to submit such proof of remittance before original authority and if the value mentioned in export documents found tallies with the amounts mentioned in export remittance documents in dollar term then the correlation may be treated as established between export documents and excise documents and hence, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 03.11.2004 and ARE-1 No. 03/05-06 dated 22.07.2005 were already filed with the department i.e. Jurisdictional Range authority and all the proof of exports were also filed with the Divisional authority and hence the allegations of non submission of proof of export are baseless and incorrect. 3.2 The Applicants submit that there is no allegation or any grounds raised in the Show Cause Notices or in the orders-in-appeal that the goods covered under above mentioned AREs-1 have been diverted to the local market and the same have not been exported. In fact the applicants have placed on records all the collateral evidences to establish that the goods have been exported by, them. 3.3 The Applicants submit that the said documents were already produced during the, course of proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner as seen from the aforesaid correspondences and all the evidences substantiating the export of goods were produced before the Adjudicating Authority and in spite of the same the demand was confirmed with the findings that no evidences are filed by the Applicants. The said proceedings deserved to be quashed and the aforesaid documents should be accepted as evidences of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents and requested for grant of relief. 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, the applicants exported goods vide various AREs-1. The original authority vide three (3) impugned Orders-in-Original covering four (4) AREs-1 confirmed the demand mainly on the ground that the applicants failed to produce proof of export in the form of original and duplicate copies of AREs-1, duly endorsed by the Customs authorities. In one Order-in-Original, the original authority accepted the proof of export, however, imposed penalty on applicants on the ground that the proof of export was submitted late and also that the applicants has been habitual offender as much as they frequently failed to submit original and duplicate copies ;of AREs-1, duly endorsed by the Custom officers. In one order-in-original, penalty was imposed for the reason of exporting the goods without valid LUT. Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the impugned Orders-in-Original vide order-in-appeal. Government of India vide Revision Order No.1396-I399/11-Gx dated 14.10.2011 rejected the revision application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examine the aspect of proof of export on the basis of collateral evidences available on records or submitted by the applicants. 9.1 In respect of ARE-1 No.03/04-05 dated 17.5.2004 and ARE-1 No.04/04-05 dated 30.9.2004 the Government observes that the applicants in the paper book of revision application has submitted copy of excise invoice, export invoice, bill of lading and BRC. The excise invoices contain mention of relevant ARE-1 No:03 dated 17.5.2004, export invoice No. KPM/EX/03 and ARE-1 No.04 dated 30.9.2004, export invoice No. KPM/EX/05 respectively. The shipping marks Nos. mentioned in excise invoice and export invoice tallies with the shipping marks mentioned in the relevant bill of lading. Further, the quantity/weight, description of excise invoice tallies with quantity/weight and description mentioned in the export invoice. Also, value mentioned in export invoice tallies with amount mentioned in BRC in dollar term. On the basis of collateral evidences, the correlation stands established between export documents and excise documents and hence, export may be treated as completed. As such, demand of duty is not sustainable for aforesaid reasons. However, such verificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
