9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to establish that the excise paid inputs were used for export of goods and the material for corelating the same are available on record, however, the same has not been examined. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed solely relying upon the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [ 2013 (12) TMI 1739 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ] without considering other aspects - it is considered apposite to set aside the impugned orders - matter remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider afresh - petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 10767/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2023 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Jayant Kumar Mr. Soham Bandyopadhyay, Advs. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Priya Singh, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Ms. Sunita Shukla, Adv. for UOI. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 06.08.2018 (Order no.517/18-CX and Order no.512-516/18-CX) passed by the Government of India, whereby the revision applications filed by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order rejecting the appeal is not on record. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner s appeal was rejected without considering the applicability of Rule 18 of the CE Rules. 6. The petitioner filed a Revision Application impugning the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority before the Central Government, however, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 (Order no.517/2018-CX). A plain reading of the said order also indicates that the Central Government had not considered the petitioner s plea that it was entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules. 7. The petitioner s application for refund was rejected solely on the ground that the Central Government did not have any jurisdiction to consider an issue regarding rejection of a refund under Rule 5 of the CC Rules. 8. The second batch of applications seeking rebate were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority in terms of various orders passed in the months of April and September, 2015. The Adjudicating Authority denied the petitioners prayer for rebate under Notification no.21/2004-CE(NT) on the ground that the goods were not exported on ARE-2 and the shipping bills reflected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut-II] to consider the petitioner s claim that it was entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules. 15. Insofar as the second batch of applications for rebate is concerned, it is seen that the Appellate Authority [Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-I, Meerut] has specifically noted that the petitioner had filed an original copy of ARE-I; self-attested copy of shipping bills; self-attested copy of export invoices, self-attested copy of the Bill of Lading; self-attested price list; triplicate copy of invoices issued under Rule 7 of the CE Rules and self-attested copy of input invoices. However, the petitioner s appeal was rejected as the Appellate Authority found that petitioner had not followed the procedure as laid down in Notification no.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. As noted above, the Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis that the said controversy was covered by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (supra). 16. It is relevant to note that in M/s CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (supra), the petitioner therein relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ARE-1 form was not regarded as invalidating the rebate claim and the proceedings were remitted back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after allowing to the Petitioner an opportunity to produce documents to prove the export of duty paid goods in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 read with notification dated 6 September, 2004 [Order No.1754/2010-CX, dated 20 December, 2010 of D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944]. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has also placed on the record other orders passed by the revisional authority of the Government of India taking a similar view [ Garg Tex-O-Feb Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (271) E.L.T. 449] and Hebenkraft 2001 (136) E.L.T. 979. The CESTAT has also taken the same view in its decisions in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2009 (233) E.L.T. 367, Model Buckets Attachments (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise- 2007 (217) E.L.T. 264 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. TISCO 2003 (156) E.L.T. 777. 20. In a latter decision delivered by the Gujarat High Court in Raj Petro Specialities v. Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the same time Part-I on reverse side of ARE-1 has the endorsement of Central Excise Officers, which denotes that identity of goods and its duty paid character is established. The Central Excise Officers are required to verify the particulars of packages / goods lying / stored with the particulars given in ARE-1 Form and if the Central Excise Officer is satisfied about identity of goods, its duty paid character and all the particulars given by the exporter in his application, he will endorse the ARE-1 Form and permit export. In this case no contrary observation is made by Central Excise Officers and therefore they have made endorsement in ARE-1 after doing the requisite verification and allowed exports. In view of this position, Government finds no force in the contention of department that Central Excise Officers have not made verification as required under C.B.E. C. Circular dated 30-1-1997. The certification by Central Excise Officers in ARE-1 is certainly required to be done after verifying that goods are in original packing. The Central Excise Officers have nowhere pointed out that goods were not in original packing. So the contention of department regarding correlability i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
