9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cartons pertaining to said ARE-1 have been exported. Such factual observations of appellate authority has not been controverted by department by any substantial documentary evidence. Department failed to adduce any evidence that the short shipped 92 cartons pertain to goods covered vide impugned ARE-1. Under such circumstances the findings of appellate authority cannot be faulted with. - Decided against Revenue. - F.No. 198/51/10-RA - ORDER NO. 07/2014-CX - Dated:- 2-1-2014 - SHRI D.P. SINGH, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER This revision application is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-III against the order appeal No. YDB/87/M-II/09 dated 29.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant department has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the exporter on the strength of the Short Shipment Notice dated 11.06.2004, which indicates the carton serial number other than covered in the ARE-I No.33/04-05 dated 10.06.2004. However, it appears from the said Short Shipment Notice that the carton serial number of the cartons reported short shipped has been manipulated which is apparent from the corrections made in the said serial number. Even otherwise serial number from 749 to 840 is generally not written as 749 to 840 as revealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent proceeds to decide the case on the basis of available records. 7. government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, oral written submissions and perused the impugned order-in original and order-In-appeal. 8. Government observes that the respondent's rebate claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that respondent short shipped 92 cartons out of total 535 cartons mentioned in the ARE-1 and that it was not possible to ascertain exact quantity and quality of processed fabrics short shipped on the basis of available records. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case in favour of respondents on the grounds that the short shipment notice dated 11.06.2004 mentions the short shipment of 92 cartons beari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion. 9.1 Government notes that the appellate authority has categorically held that 92 cartons which were short shipped do not pertain to ARE-1 No. 33/04-05 dated 10.6.2004 and all the 535 cartons pertaining to said ARE-1 have been exported. Such factual observations of appellate authority has not been controverted by department by any substantial documentary evidence. Department failed to adduce any evidence that the short shipped 92 cartons pertain to goods covered vide impugned ARE-1. Under such circumstances the findings of appellate authority cannot be faulted with. 10. In view of above discussion, Government finds no infirmity in order of Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, upholds the same. 11. Revision application is thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
