9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of their claim that any such request for amendment of shipping bill is still pending. It is quite clear from the available records that no amendment is carried on the shipping bill even after lapse of six years. Case cannot be kept pending and has to be decided on the basis of available records. - in the absence of any amendment in the shipping bill the value as declared in the shipping bill cannot be changed. As such, Government finds no legal infirmity in the impugned orders and upholds the same - Decided against assessee. - F. No. 195/186/12-Ra & 371/32/DBK/12-RA - 246-247-14-cx - Dated:- 20-5-2014 - Shri. D. P. Singh, Joint Secretary ORDER These revision applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim was required to be restricted only to the extent of duty payable on the FOB value. ii) The respondents had declared on the ARE-1s that they were availing facility under Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004 and Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001. Therefore as per the said notifications, the goods were required to be exported under bond. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 22.12.2011 as mentioned at Sr.No.(1) of table above, allowed the department's appeal. In the meanwhile, a protective show cause notice dated 4.11.2011 was issued for recovery of erroneously sanctioned rebate claim of ₹ 226671/-. Pursuant to said order-in-appeal dated 22.12.2011, the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .43/2001 CE(NT) dated 26/06/2001; and 21/2004 CE (NT) dated 06.06.2004 mentioned in the ARE-1. In this, the appellants submit that the ARE-1 is having printed format in which the certification is mentioned in the bottom that if the exporter avaiied the facility, then they have to mark the same. It is relevant to mention here that the appellants have not highlighted not marked the availment of Notification No.43/2001 CE(NT) dated 26/06/2001 and 21/20,04 CE (NT) dated 06.06.2004. Hence, it is incorrect to deny the rebate or demand the sanctioned refund back on this ground. 3.3 There are number of judgments, wherein it has been clearly held that the procedural lapse cannot be a ground for denial of Rebate once the export is proved. In suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated above. 7. Government finds that the applicant department challenged the rebate sanction order of original authority before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there were discrepancies in FOB value mentioned in shipping bill and ARE-1. The applicant contended that this discrepancy is due to typographical error and that they made application for amendment through their CHA, however, the CHA has not given amended copy of shipping bill. The similar plea was taken before Commissioner (Appeals) also. The position remained same even after/at the time of hearing on 11.4.14. Applicant has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of their claim that any such request for amendment of shipping bill is still pending. It is qui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
