9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resence of excise authority. As such, the applicant cannot be alleged to have violated the provisions contained in the above said circular. Central Excise Officers have made verification as required under C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 30-1-1997. The certification by Central Excise Officers in ARE-1 is certainly required to be done after verifying that goods are in original packing. The Central Excise Officers have nowhere pointed out that goods were not in original packing. So the contention of department regarding correlability is not sustainable. The cross reference of ARE-1s and Shipping Bills is available on ARE-1s and shipping bills. The ARE-1s duly certified by Central Excise Officers and Customs Officers leave no doubt that duty paid goods cleared from factory have been exported as there is no reason to doubt the endorsement of Customs Officers on the ARE-1 Form. Substantial compliance of provisions of said Circular dated 30-1-1997 has been done by the applicant - Government also notes that although there are a catena of judgments that the substantial exports benefits should not be denied on mere procedural infractions until and unless there is some evidence to point out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir godown were liable for rejection. The department also contended that the Adjudicating Authority i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, North Daman Division in the impugned Os-in-O/Sanction Orders sanctioning the rebate claims of the assessee has not mentioned the fact that the goods have been stuffed and sealed by the Range Officers of Thane-I Commissionerate and duty character of the goods stuffed and exported has been correlated and verified with the goods cleared from the factory under different ARE-1s. The department contended that the Adjudicating Authority has sanctioned the rebate claims without discussing the facts and without going into the merit of the cases. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Orders-in-Appeal dated 31-3-2011 has allowed the appeals filed by department and set aside the impugned Orders-in-Original. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant filed these revision applications under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before Government on following grounds : 3.1 The Assistant Commissioner rightly granted rebate claims to Applicant after his finding that the Original copy of AREs-1 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedure as may be prescribed by the Commissioner. The Central Excise officer i.e. Range officer of Thane-I Commissionerate, deputed for verification of the goods for export were satisfied about the identity of the goods, its duty paid character and all other particulars given by the applicant in their application and ARE-1, and the Central Excise Officers endorsed the aforesaid forms and permitted the export. 3.4 The Excise invoices were prepared in the name of foreign buyer clearly mentioning on the invoices that goods will be routed through our Bhiwandi Godown to the Port of Export. The corresponding invoice nos. were declared on the relevant ARE-1s. These Invoices were submitted to the department along with claims. Further Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs - North Daman in its finding has mentioned that duplicate copies of Central Excise Invoices were submitted. As it is admitted facts that the goods were stuffed and sealed by Range officers of Thane-I Commissionerate, the AREs-1 under which goods were exported were endorsed by these officers with their stamp and seals and these ARE-1s were submitted to the department along with respective Rebate claims which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On perusal of case records, Government observes that in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal it has been held that rebate claims were not admissible as the goods were not exported direct from factory or warehouse as laid down in condition 2(a) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and the relaxed procedure laid down in C.B.E. C. Circular No. 294/10/97-CX, dated 30-1-1997 relaxing the above said condition is not applicable to the said goods as the original authority failed to discuss the aspect of correlatibility. The applicant has filed these revision applications on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 7. The department has contended that the applicant has not exported the goods directly from factory or warehouse and as such, violated the condition 2(a) of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The applicant has stated that the goods can be exported from factory or warehouse or any other place permitted by the C.B.E. C. by a general or special order. The C.B.E. C. vide Circular No. 294/10/97-CX, dated 30-1-1997 has prescribed the procedure for export of goods from place other than factory or warehouse. Applicants have stated that they have complied with requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervision charges at the prescribed rates for the services of the Central Excise Officer deputed for the purpose. 8.6 The disposal of different copies of AR4 forms should be in the following manner : (i) the original and duplicate copies are to be returned to the exporter for being presented by him along with his shipping bill, other documents and export consignment at the point of export. (ii) triplicate and quadruplicate copies to be sent to the Superintendent In-charge of the Range in whose jurisdiction the factory from which the excisable goods had been originally cleared on payment of duty is situated. That Superintendent will requisition the relevant invoice duty paying document which the manufacturer shall handover to the Superintendent promptly under proper receipt and the Superintendent will carry out necessary verification, and certify the correctness of duty payment on both triplicate and quadruplicate copies of AR4. He will also endorse on the reverse of manufacturers invoice goods exported - AR-4 VERIFIED , (and return it to the manufacturer under proper receipt). He will forward the triplicate copy to the Maritime Commissioner of the Port from where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar. 9.1 On simple perusal of Excise documents and export documents, Government observes that the details regarding quantity, net weight, gross weight, description, etc. are exactly tallying impugned ARE-1s and shipping bills. Further, the Part-II on reverse of ARE-1 contains the Customs Certification about export of goods vide relevant Shipping Bills. Customs has certified that goods mentioned on ARE-1 have been exported vide relevant Shipping Bill. At the same time Part-I on reverse side of ARE-1 has the endorsement of Central Excise Officers, which denotes that identity of goods and its duty paid character is established. The Central Excise Officers are required to verify the particulars of packages/goods lying/stored with the particulars given in ARE-1 Form and if the Central Excise Officer is satisfied about identity of goods, its duty paid character and all the particulars given by the exporter in his application, he will endorse the ARE-1 Form and permit export. In this case no contrary observation is made by Central Excise Officers and therefore they have made endorsement in ARE-1 after doing the requisite verification and allowed exports. In view of this position, Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
