9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore upholds the same. - Decided against assessee - F. Nos. 195/131-133/2012-RA - 100-102/2014-CX - Dated:- 26-3-2014 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri R. Arumugam, Consultant, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER These revision applications are filed by the applicants M/s. Renaissance RTW Asia (P) Ltd., Tirupur against the orders-in-appeal No. CMB-CEX-000-APP-206-11, dated 23-11-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore with respect to orders-in-original No. 129-131/2010, dated 13-12-2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupur Division. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Renaissance RTW Asia (P) Ltd., No. 1, Thennampalayam, Tir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They did not file the triplicate and quadruplicate copies of 29 ARE-1s to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise within 24 hours of removal of the goods as required. 2.2 In view of this position, the rebate claims filed by M/s. RRAPL appeared to be not sustainable under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and as such it appeared that the said claims merit rejection. 2.3 Hence, a notice was issued on 1-9-2010 to M/s. RRAPL requiring them to show cause within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupur Division, Tirupur as to why the aforesaid claims should not be rejected as not sustainable for the reasons discussed in paras 2 and 3 supra. 2.4 As M/s. RRAL averred that they have filed the trip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is; based on the notional credit taken, they debited the duty and claim rebate; these aspects have to be taken into account at the time of sanctioning rebate. After following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority rejected the said rebate claims. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders-in-original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the impugned orders-in-original and rejected the appeal. 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 The applicants respectfully further submit that the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issible and acceptable in the absence of any circular/notification or rule to this effect. It is submitted that there are no rules/circulars/notifications contrary to this also. Both the notifications are open and the applicants can very well opt for both the notifications. The applicants did not hide any fact from the knowledge of the department. After paying 4% of Adv. on exported goods the applicants have sought for rebate of that amount only and not more than that. The entire export activities were with the knowledge of the department and the applicants were filing the returns in form ER3s for every quarter. The fact of filing ER3s on quarterly basis has been admitted by the adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able @ 8% in terms of Notification No. 11/2009-C.E., dated 7-7-2009. Applicant had claimed rebate claim of duty paid @ 4% and contended that portion of exports cleared without payment of duty may be considered as partly cleared under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) under LUT/Bond. The triplicate copy of ARE-1 was also not submitted to prove the payment of duty. As such, the original authority rejected the said rebate claims. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned orders-in-original. Now the applicant has filed these revision applications on the grounds stated above. 8. Government notes that applicant has not paid the proper duty @ 8% on the said goods though the effective rate of duty was 8%. Applicant has contended that part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prepare and send the triplicate copy to the Range Superintendent. In this regard, adjudicating authority has stated in para 6 of his order as under : 6. As M/s. RRAL averred that they have filed the triplicate copy of ARE-1s to the Superintendent along with ER-3 returns, a reference was made to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tirupur-IV Range to send a factual report on this. The R.O., Tirupur-IV Range has sent the triplicate copies of 28 ARE-1s stating inter alia as follows : 6.1 Since the assessee have not furnished the serial number of the ARE-1 in their statement meant for debiting the duty, payment of duty in respect of these ARE-1s cannot be verified; 6.2 One ARE-1 No. 271/6-8-2009 has not been submitted by M/s. RRAP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
