9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its correctness. Customs has certified the export of goods in ARE-1 & shipping bill. So this objection does not sustain. Applicant has now submitted a BRC bearing signature and stamp of Bank. The legible copies of all documents are claimed to be available with: them. As such proof of export can be considered for acceptance after verifying the authenticity of BRC, and the fact that difference in value was due to difference in exchange rates. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - F.No. 195/1702/12-RA - 151/14-CX - Dated:- 15-4-2014 - SHRI D.P. SINGH, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER This Revision application is filed by M/s BESCO Ltd., 24 Parganas (South), Kolkata against Order in Appeal No.56-57/Kol-VII/2011 dated 31.11.10 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise, Kolkata. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Sonarpur Division, Kolkata-VII Commissionerate confirmed demand of duty under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, along with interest at the appropriate rate under Section 11AB and also imposed penalty equal to amount of duty under Section 11AC ibid as detailed below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 after expiry of one year from the date of clearance from factory. v. Bank Remittance Certificate submitted does not bear any signature of Bank Officer. vi. Met. receipt copy also not submitted by the applicant. In respect of ARE-1 No.29/ Besco/Expo/08-99 dated 12.02.2009 i. Goods cleared from the factory under ARE-1 dated 12.02.2009; whereas Export invoice date is 05.02.2009. ii. Goods cleared from the factory under ARE-1 dated 12.02.2009, whereas Shipping Bill date 11.02.2009. iii. Bank Remittance Certificate submitted does not bear any signature of Bank Officer. iv. Met. receipt copy also not submitted by the applicant. Also copies of all the documents are very hazy and illegible that relevant particulars are not readable. The same view, has also been opined by the concerned Range officer and also the original adjudicating authority. In view of the above, I find no reason to modify the order of the lower adjudicating authority. I therefore uphold the, impugned two orders-in-original both dated 10.03.2010 as passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Sonarpur Division and reject both the appeals. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/02/09, 11/02/09 and 12/02/09 respectively. It is not mandatory that customs invoice, ARE-1 and Shipping Bill are to be prepared on the same date. 4.3 Regarding Commissioner (Appeal) s observation that some of the documents are very, hazy illegible we would like to state that due to shifting of our office from Ballygunge to the present place at Poonam Building in the year 2009, huge documents were required to be shifted and in that process some of the files containing original documents got mixed with other old files and documents. So, the documents submitted by us as the proof of exports were xeroxed from other Photocopies and this led to haziness of the documents. However, we have sorted out the original files and documents, and Photocopies made therefrom from the self same documents have been submitted for your Honours kind perusal and consideration. These documents are very much readable. 4.4 Regarding unsigned Bank Remittance Certificate, we would like to state that the certificates are computer generated. So, exempted from signature. However, we have got the said certificates signed by Bank officials and submitted as part of Proof of export. 4.5 As to the differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our office on 6.12.12. Filing of the revision application is in pursuance of the said CESTAT's order. As filing of the application got delayed due to pendency of the appeal before CESTAT, an application for condonation of delay is being filed, requesting for admittance of the instant revision application and to dispose of the subject revision application on merit. 6. The personal hearing scheduled in this case on 3.4.14 was attended by Shri R.K.Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 7. Government has carefully gone through relevant case records oral written submissions and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in appeal. 8. Government notes that before proceeding further, the application for condonation of delay is to be considered. Applicant had initially filed appeal before CESTAT on 28.2.11 against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 31.11.10 received on 8.12.10. CESTAT vide order No.S-1536/A-847/KOL/2012 dated 29.11.12 claimed to be received on 6.12.12, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Applicant filed this revision application on 14.12.12. Therefore, applicant has requested to condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
