9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RST/III/ 09-10 dt 19.12.09 1689653 36851.75 RST/Exp.541/09 dt 16.12.09 38892.92 1036791 16.12.09 36851.7 5 0560DEL00041 Dt. 139227 RST/121/ 09-10 dt. 08.01.10 1871957 40431.04 RST/Exp.550/09 dt 07.01.10 42879.20 1045171 dt. 07.01.10 40431.0 5 DEL/ATL/ANT/O 95 dt.19.01.10 154250 RST/122/ 09-10 dt. 11.01.10 1871957 40431.04 RST/Exp.551/09 dt 09.01.10 42879.20 1046962 dt 11.01, 10 40431.0 5 DEL/ATL/ANT/O 95 dt.19.01.10 154250 Total 447727 2. The goods were cleared from the factory under ARE-Is as detailed above on payment of Central Excise duty and the applicant submitted original and duplicate copies of the said ARE-Is duly endorsed by the Customs authorities. On examination of ARE-I No. RST/121/09-10 dated 08.01.2010, it was found that in the part B of the said ARE-I the Customs Authority has mentioned the shipping bill No. 1044599 as evidence that the goods underARE-1 121&ted "08.01201Chave been exported under shipping bill no. 1044599, whereas the party submitted the shipping bill no. 1045171 dated 07.01.2010 along with said ARE-I. Further in the shipping bill no. 1045171 the ARE-I No. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceed in terms of foreign exchange realized. 4.4. That the substantive right of the applicant to get the rebate on duty paid export goods cannot be denied on the ground that a human error had occurred that too on the part of the departmental officer and as it was for the department to verify the genuineness of the endorsement made by the customs officials. 4.5. That it is highly unreasonable on the part of the sanctioning authority to eject the claim of. rebate on the ground that the applicant could not secure the verification report from the concerned customs formation. 4.6. That the applicant is within right to claim rebate of duty on export goods within a time frame stipulated under the provisions of rule and any action on the part of the departmental authorities to pre-empt the statutory right of the exporter deserved sanction of interest as applicable. 5. The applicant also made additional written submissions which are as under: 5.1 That the customs authorities while signing certificate on triplicate of ARE-I against Part-B inadvertently endorsed wrong shipping bill no. 1044599 which was subsequently was got corrected as no. 1045171 bearing the dated signatures of the cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmission have been made: 6.1. That the appellate authority in his order clearly mentioned that the applicant had produced the copies of some supplementary documents to their office and these documents are the copies of the export challan, bill of lading, ARE-I form and packing list etc. But these documents do not indicate the cross reference of the ARE-I and shipping bill in question. 6.2. That on examination of ARE-I No. RST/121/09-10 dated 08.01.2010, it was found that in the part B of the said ARE-I the Customs Authority has mentioned the Shipping Bill No. 1044599 as evidences that the goods under ARE-1 121 dated 08.01.2010 have been exported under shipping bill no. 1044599, whereas the party has submitted the shipping bill no. 1045171 dated 07.01.2010 along with said ARE-I. Further in the shipping bill no. 1045171 the ARE-I No. has been mentioned as 120 dated 08.01.2010 which proved that this shipping bill is not pertaining to the ARE-I No. 121 dated 08.01.2010. 6.3. That if there is any discrepancy (i.e. wrong mention of shipping bill no., wrong mention of container no. etc. occurred in the Part-B of the ARE-I after passing by the Customs Authority, the same should be in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in filing the Revision Application by the applicant after a delay of eight days. The applicant vide their letter dated 09.07.2015 has submitted that they were pursuing appeal before wrong forum (Hon'ble CESTAT) whereas in case of export of goods the appeal lies to Hon'ble Revisionary Authority. That they were pursuing a wrong remedy, in good faith, before the Tribunal through their previous consultant, who had erroneously filed the appeal before the CESTAT, New Delhi on 23.08.2011 well within stipulated time of 3 months against the order in appeal dated 20.042011 as received on 23.05.2011. And that no appeal lie to the CESTAT and the Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) of Section 35 B of Central Excise Act, 1944 if such order relates to a rebate of duty of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported to any country or territory outside India, as such the CESTAT transferred said appeal along with all documents before revisionary Authority for consideration. The applicant filed Revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
