2007 (4) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aim was rejected on the ground that container number mentioned on the Bill of Lading was not tallying with the container number mentioned in the ARE-1 and the Seal No. given on mate receipt is different from the Seal No. given on the ARE-1 and the clarification submitted by the appellants that the discrepancies were typographical error was not accepted/approved by the Commissioner in pre-audit of the claim. 3. The appeal filed against the above order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) observing as under :- On going through the documents, it is found that not only the container number and seal number but the quantity and weight appearing on the Bill of Lading is also not tallying with the quantity and weight given in ARE-1 No. 41, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... RE-1, duly certified by the Superintendent of Central Excise. (iii)       That ld. Commissioner (Appeals) does not offer any findings on this ground and hence, it is presumed that, in the absence of any rebuttal thereto, he has accepted the contention of the applicants. (iv)       That Commissioner (Appeals), however, upholds the order on brand new ground of discrepancy with regard to number of pellets, gross weight and net weight mentioned in ARE-1 and shipping bill. (v)        That once both ARE-1 Nos. 41 and 42 are considered it is clear that Bill of Lading was prepared against two shipping bills. (vi)       Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s containing stainless steel A2 balls, nuts etc. totally valued at Rs. 30,76,880/- on payment of Central Excise duty vide AR No. 41/04-05, dated 11-1-05 for export. Perusal of Part-A of the ARE shows that it bears endorsement of Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise to the effect that the applicants have paid Central Excise duty on the impugned goods. It also bears endorsement that the goods after examination by the Central Excise officers was stuffed in the Container No. Misc. 231841 (1) bottle seal No. Misc. S-220507. Similarly Part-B of the ARE-1 bears customs endorsement that the consignment was shifted under S/B No. 3216216, dated 12-1-05. 6.3 Government further notes that the applicants have also produced a photocopy of cer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X