9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of refund claim. 2. The appellant had cleared a consignment of their excisable product from the factory on 21-11-2008 without payment of duty, for export under ARE-1 procedure in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. The relevant Shipping Bill was filed on 24-11-2008 and the same was assessed by the proper office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was received only on 12-6-2009. Meanwhile, copies of the shipping bill and Bill of Lading were furnished to the Central Excise Range officer on 28-4-2009. The Inspector of Central Excise in the range office, on 28-4-2009 itself, required the appellant to file ARE-1 certified by the Customs authorities as proof of export within time limit. It was in pursuance of this instruction that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the submissions, I am of the view that the refund cannot be denied to the appellant in the circumstances of this case. It is not in dispute that the goods were exported on 14-12-2008 as certified by the Customs Officer in PART-B of the relevant ARE-1. This document also indicates that the Customs Officer s certificate was issued as late as on 12-6-2009. It is also not in dispute that, when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Officer s certificate of the goods covered by the Shipping Bill dated 24-11-2008 having been shipped on 14-12-2008. On these facts and circumstances, there is no reason why it should be held that the appellant violated Condition No. (ii) of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) ibid. The appellant should not have been compelled to pay duty on the goods. When they claimed its refund, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
