9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only part claim was rejected on above said ground, is just and proper - Revision application rejected - Decided against the assessee. - F.No.195/258/13-RA - ORDER NO. 21/2016-CX - Dated:- 28-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by M/S Xomox Sanmar Ltd., Viralimalai against the Order-In-AppeaI No.331/2012 dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapally with respect to Order-In-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Division-Il, Tiruchirapally. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are holders of Central Excise Registration No. AAACX0247KXM001 for the manufacture of indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2002. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order- n Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-In-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) erred in disallowing the rebate claim pertaining to three numbers of ARE-Is on the ground that there is variation in weight mentioned in Shipping bill/Air Way Bill with ARE-I. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the above mentioned errors are in the nature of procedural lapse and rebate claim ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices from the overseas customers, which is also evident from the bank realization certificate (BRC) submitted to RBI. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there is no dispute with reference to the value of goods referred to ARE-I and there is also no dispute on the fact that the applicant has realized the value shown in ARE-I. 4.3 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the Range Officer has verified all the documents and given a report in respect of the subject ARE-I saying that the refund may be granted as the error is only typographical in nature. 4.4 The applicant has relied upon various case laws in favour of their contention. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
