9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not correct in one of the ARE-I and the vessel/make, flight No. does not tally with Airway Bill, Bill of Lading and as such, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the goods under the said AREs-1 have been exported. - during this revisionary proceedings also no such documentary evidences were produced to controvert above said observation of-lower authorities. - rejection of rebate claim on these grounds is correct. - Decided against the applicant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore 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) failed to appreciate that in the case of transportation through air cargo; the air freight is being charged by the airline using their own scientific method of calculation and not based on actual. The method adopted by the airline for calculating the freight cannot be compared with the actual quantity to conclude the excess or shortage and failed to appreciate that the airline usually calculates the charge using a formula namely, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, oral & written submissions and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the part rebate claims of ₹ 261381/- was rejected on ground that there is huge variation of weight between ARE-Is, and Air Way Bills, the sealing date is not correct in one of the ARE-I and the vessel/make, flight No. does not tally with Airway Bill, Bill of Lading and as such, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the goods under the said AREs-1 have been exported. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government observes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that when the applicant seeks rebate under Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.092004, which prescribes compliance of certain conditions, the same cannot be ignored. While claiming the rebate under Rule 18 ibid, the applicant should have ensured strict compliance of the conditions attached to the said Notification Government places reliance on the judgment in the case of Mihir Textiles Ltd. Versus Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1997 (92) ELT 9 (S.C.) wherein it is held that: "concessional relief of duty which is made dependent on the satisfaction of certain conditions cannot be granted without compliance of such conditions No matter even if the conditions are only directory." As such, there is no merit in the plea of the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
