9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent, since CETH on shipping bill has been mentioned wrongly due to oversight. The applicant has not challenged the Bank Realisation Certificate mentioning details relating to invoice no. and date, description of goods, customs authenticated shipping bill, bill of lading and FOB value realized in Foreign Exchange. The fact that the customs preventive officer has certified the export of impugned consignment and remittance has also been received against the said export has not been contested. Government does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence revision application is rejected. - F.No. 198/217/2016-R.A. (CX) - Order No. 102/2019-CX - Dated:- 18-10-2019 - Ms. Mallika Arya, Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not get established. Being aggrieved the respondent appealed against this order before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata who set aside the impugned Order-in-Original on the grounds that the Preventive Officer of Customs had allowed export and Notification No. 40/2001 does not exclude Preventive Officer from the purview of Duly appointed officer ; identity of export goods is established wherein inputs are co-relatable to finished goods. He has allowed the appeal with consequential relief. 3. The revision application has been filed on the grounds that the exported goods were completely different from the goods for which rebate claim was filed. The RITC code indicated in the relative Shipping Bills is 7204 41 00 whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Mill Scale falling under CETH 26190 09 which was mistakenly mentioned as CETH 7204 41 00 on the shipping bill The description of the goods in question is the same on ARE-2 as well as the shipping bill. The entire activity of export was done in the Haldia dock campus and was checked by the Customs Officers in the dock area. The respondent has also requested for rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay in filing Revision Application and an anomaly on part of the applicant in filing the Revision Application. Since no one appeared on behalf of the applicant on any of the three date, the case is being decided on merits. It has been observed that the Review Order has been signed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, customs authenticated shipping bill, bill of lading and FOB value realized in Foreign Exchange. The fact that the customs preventive officer has certified the export of impugned consignment and remittance has also been received against the said export has not been contested. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Zandu Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India wherein the court has held that interpretation of statutes, procedural requirement are capable of substantial compliance, and cannot be held to be mandatory 2015 (315) E.L.T. 520 (Bom.). Further, Government, in the case of Agio Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has held substantial condition of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are complied with, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
