9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority vide their letter dated 07.10.2015 intimating that they had cancelled the ARE-1 No. B061/2015-2016 dated 23.06.2015 pertaining to export of goods, on payment of duty of Rs. 11,69,079.29 under invoice No.EI-1516500064 dated 23.06.2015. Thereafter, the assessee filed a refund claim in form Annexure No. 28 dated 02.11.2015 for refund of the above amount of Rs. 11,69,079.29 on the ground that the same was erroneously paid and that the export made under ARE-1 above was cancelled and therefore the export duty erroneously debited in their Cenvat Account No. RG.23.A.II Sl. No. 316 dated 23.06.2015 has to be refunded. They also further pleaded that the said goods were cleared vide invoice No. EI 1516500180 dated 26.09.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lapse of more than 3 months from the cancelled ARE-1 and more than 10 days after the export had actually happened, making it impossible for the Range officer to ascertain physically as to whether the said goods were retained in the factory premises after the abandoned export on 23.06.15 and that the same were exported subsequently on 26.09.2015. iii) The daily stock account of the factory is the basic document to substantiate their claim that the subject goods were retained on 23.06.2015 and duty accounted in the Stock Register and subsequently the same were exported on 26.09.2015, the Opening Stock Register submitted by them reveals that as on 26.09.2015, the opening Balance of stock is 0 (nil) and quantity manufactured is also Nil. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e quantity or the price except with regard to the foreign exchange rate and this fact has never been disputed by the lower authorities and therefore it can be safely assumed that both forms of ARE-1 are referring to the same/only one invoice. Further, it is a case where the goods were intended to be cleared/removed on payment of duty and not on bond, which fact is also not disputed by the authorities below either in the SCN or in the subsequent orders and therefore, I am of the opinion that the procedures prescribed would not apply to the case on hand. It is a case where goods were exported by the appellant under the subsequent ARE-1 for which the duty was paid twice simpliciter. For the above reasons also when admittedly the goods were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no finding as to clearing manufactured goods in any other way than reported, the fact of non-clearance of first ARE-1 has to sustain. Moreover, when the Revenue entertains a dispute as to the daily stock account, it was all the more expected that they make appropriate enquiries at the relevant point of time and therefore in the absence of any contrary factual evidence as to the procurement of additional raw materials, etc., as indicated herein above, such disputes/allegations howsoever, strong cannot be held to be sufficient. 7. For the above reasons therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and hence the same is set aside and consequently the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
