9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. Accordingly SCN, dated 27-8-1998 under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued to M/s. Seema Silks Sarees (respondents). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) sanctioned rebate of Rs. 7,28,408.50 and Rs. 33,53,267.03 in respect of forty eight AR4s and rejected rebate of Rs. 5,176. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a basic document is mandatory and as such no relaxation/waiver can be granted. (iii) The difference in the name of the vessel in the Bill of Lading and the corresponding AR4s and Shipping Bills, without the proper observance of Customs procedure, the changes effected by the respondents in the shipping bill are not proper. Accordingly he sought rejection of the rebate claims filed by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the Disclaimer Certificate. (iii) Drew attention to para 9 of the impugned appellate orders and the certificates from the shipping agents about the change in the vessel (page 97 to 106 of the reply, dated 10-9-1998 to the SCN). They further averred that in fact no new point has been brought out in the grounds of application. All these points were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and its acceptance by the Assistant Commissioner said to be an after-thought, cannot be sustained. As regards the Disclaimer Certificate it is not shown even now in Revision that there were claims filed by the manufacturers in respect of the same consignments exported. In the absence of the same and as the export consignments were sealed under proper excise supervision, of goods procured from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
