9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any factual submission, duly supported by any relevant documentary evidences. Under such circumstances, the conclusion of appellate authority, based on such incontrovertible factual observation required to be acceded to. - Revision application dismissed - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.195/687/12-RA - ORDER NO. 50/2016-CX - Dated:- 11-3-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by applicant M/S USV Ltd., Mumbai, against the Order-in-Appeal No.US/236/RGD/2012 dated 164.12 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-Il), Mumbai with regard to Order-in-Original No.540/1112/Deputy Commissioner (Rebate)/Raigad dated 30.6.11 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 for ₹ 40,938/- and ₹ 2004/- respectively, needs to be set aside as grossly violating the principles of natural justice. Thus it is erroneous and void-ab-into this effect, as being issued without any basis, liable to be set-aside to that extent 4.2 As Original Order denies Rebate claim at Sr no (1) for ₹ 9276/- for the reason firstly that foot note or ARE-I was not striked out so as to know un exemption notification the claim was filed and secondly that duty payment confirmation was not furnished. 4.3 It IS a fact that applicant's contract manufacturer had filed Form ARE-I for removing the duty paid excisable goods for export to countries other than Nepal Bhutan. This by itself means that applicants had filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifiable defects. 4.6 Further, when the duty payment was proved in form of Certified RG23 A Part Il of the contract manufacturer non dispute of export in toto, merely because Appellate Commissioner did not appreciate the bifurcation given to prove the exports by Sea by Air from respective ARE-I. He should not have denied the rebate on this basis on the basis that ARE-I were lost without appreciating the Affidavit undertaking given in this regards. The basis of denial was totally different from the basis taken by the adjudicating Authority in absence of any show cause notice. Thus the impugned order needs to be set aside. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 03.08.2015 24008.2015. None appeared for hearing. Applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate given on the back of ARE-I by the Customs Officer does not show the break- up of the quantities said to have been so exported Similarly copy of ARE-I No.97 dated 11.32005 does not contain the required declaration in column nos.3 (a) (b) and (c), The duty paid is shown as ₹ 54,584/- and the rebate was claimed for ₹ 40,938/-. The certificate given on the back of ARE-I does not show the break-up of the quantities actually exported by seal air as claimed. In ARE-I No.96, out Of 9000 strips, 2000 strips are mentioned as free goods of no commercial value and in ARE-I No, 97, out of 9600 packs, 1600 packs are mentioned as free goods of no commercial value. The rebate sanctioning authority in both ARE-Is is shown as Maritime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
