9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the containers were sealed with OTS; the OTS numbers were in mentioned on AREs-1 which was certified by the customs officer and no discrepancy was noticed by customs authorities. These submissions were nowhere controverted by the original authority to reach at the conclusion that goods cleared for factory were not actually physically exported. Further, when the applicant in column (11) of impugned AREs-1 has clearly mentioned thcthey exported the goods under claim of rebate, merely wrongly striking out ""availing facility under Notification No. 19/2004-CE/(NT) dated 06.09.2004" cannot make them ineligible for rebate claims. As such, rebate claim cannot be rejected on these grounds especially when the applicant substantially complied with provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-CE/(NT) dated 06.09.2004. - original authority while declining to accept the declared ARE-1 value as transaction value under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purpose of sanction of rebate as goods were exported to their holding company; has not arrived at correct transaction value. Since, the said exports are made to their parent holding company in Germany the correct transaction value was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commissioner. Therefore show cause notice was issued to the applicants that they had not followed the procedure prescribed in Notification No. 19/2004-CE dt. 06-09-2004 and that the rebate claim is liable for rejection under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the contravention of the provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 1944 for the contravention of the provisions of Rules, 18 of Central Excise Rules,2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE dt. 06-09-2004. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order rejected the rebate claim holding that as the applicants had declared at the time of export of goods that they were not claiming rebate and at a later date, they had claimed the rebate resulting in contraventions of the provisions of Notification. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Orders-in-Original, applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed these revision applications under section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 In the present case, as per certification recorded on export docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent ought to have considered this basic and when applicant had proved that they have followed all the requirements except a clerical error as above, they would have allowed the rebate. 4.4 With regard to the declaration of related party transaction to the customs authorities or to the jurisdictional authorities: Applicant submit that the value so declared is appropriate and is as per the contracts executed by them with their principal. It has been accepted by customs authorities as their export document clearly stipulates name of buyer. In this connection, applicant wish to draw kind attention to customs Circular No. 37/2007-Cus dt. 09-10-2007 wherein the aspect of valuation for export transaction with related party has been elaborated. Further, while filing shipping bill, applicant followed due process for declaration of values and then only shipping bill has been processed. Applicant would also like to draw kind attention to sections 91C and 92E of Income Tax Act wherein it is mandatory to ascertain arm's length price in relation to an international transaction. The report as prescribed in the form No. 3CEB under section 92E read with rule 10E is forming part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19/2004-CE/(NT) dated 06.09.2004 were violated; and that they exported the goods to their holding company M/s Siemens, Germany and as such their transaction is to related party and they did not file any costing `certificate' or any declaration to justify their valuation. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Orders-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed these Revision Applications on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government finds that the applicants can clear the goods from factory premises for export either under Central Excise supervision as mentioned in para 3(a)(i) of the Notification No. 19/2004-CE/(NT) dated 06.09.2004 or under self sealing procedure as prescribed in para 3(a)(ii) of the said notification. The applicants chose to dear the goods from factory for export by following procedure as provided in said section 3(a)(ii). There is no allegation of violation of said provision of para 3(a)(ii). Further, there is no allegation in impugned orders that the goods cleared under self sealing procedure for export, were not exported and diverted elsewhere. The applicants submitted before the original authority that they delivered the said goods to ICD and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
