9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Andheri (E) Mumbai-50, filed rebate claims bearing Nos. 17523,17524,17525 all dated 15.11.2010 under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 as amended. The rebate claims amounting to Rs. 3,84,013/- were sanctioned vide Order-in-Original No. 426/10-11 dated 10.062011. Upon examining the above Order-in-Original, the order was reviewed and appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) on following grounds: (i) There is no Triplicate 'pink' copy attached with the subject rebate claim and there is no reason mentioned for not giving Pink/Triplicate copies and granting rebate in absence of 'Pink' triplicate copy. (ii) MR date at Sr. No. 2 & 3 is shown as 07.07.2010 whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en received by the applicant. It was also not disputed by the department that the goods which were exported were duty paid. In para 7 of the Order-in-Original No. 426/10-11/AC(Rebate)/Raigad dated 10.06.2011 the sanctioning authority confirm and verified the physical export took place from the JNCH and duty payment particulars from the jurisdictional Range Superintendent. 4.3 That as per para 3 (xii) & (xv) of notification No. 19/2004 CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 they have received the Original, Duplicate and the Triplicate ARE-I in a tamper proof sealed cover from the Customs Authority and the jurisdictional Range Superintendent to be presented to the rebate sanctioning authority. It was also confirmed by the sanctioning authority in his Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Order-in-Appeal and mentioned specifically that as per records original and triplicate copies of ARE-I were not submitted. Only duplicate copy of ARE-I is submitted. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file, oral & written submissions and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government notes that the applicant's rebate claim was initially sanctioned by the original authority. The department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) contesting that there were certain discrepancies in documents submitted by the applicant. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed department's appeal. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) has further held that other issues cannot be considered at this stage since the rebate is inadmissible on the grounds discussed above. 10. Government also notes that the applicant has mainly relied upon the observations of the original authority regarding the submission of original and triplicate copies of ARE-I. They have failed to place any other evidence on record in support of main contention that the original and triplicate ARE-1 is were indeed submitted by them. 11. In view of the above contradictory position, Government finds that based on documentary evidence it needs to be verified whether the original (white) and triplicate (pink) copies of ARE-I were furnished with the rebate claim or not. If these are-found-to be avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
