TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o endorsement certified by the Customs Authority with respect to Shipping Bill No.7074421. When all the authorities below have concurrently found that the petitioner had not exported the goods of ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009 under Shipping Bill No.7074421 for which they claimed rebate, we are of the opinion that as such no error has been committed by any of the authorities below. - there is no reason to interfere with the same in exercise of the power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. - petition rejected - Decided against the assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 13851 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2014 - M. R. Shah And K. J. Thaker,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Nirav P. Shah For the Respondents Mr. A. Y. Ko ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 10/11/2009 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why its rebate claim may not be rejected. 2.02. That after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-III, Ahmedabad-1 rejected the rebate claim of ₹ 2,76,040/- vide Order-in-Original. 2.03. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-III, Ahmedabad-I, rejecting the rebate claim of ₹ 2,76,040/-, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Order-in- Original and rejected the appeal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order-in-Appeal, petitioner prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrent findings of facts given by all the authorities below and even considering the material on record, as such the petitioner could not establish and/or prove that as such it exported the goods of ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009 under Shipping Bill No.7074421 for which they have claimed rebate. It is submitted that it was found that in the Shipping Bill No.7074421 there was no mention with respect to ARE-1 No.48 and there was a reference with respect to ARE-1 No.50 only. It is submitted that correspondingly even in the triplicate of ARE-1 No.48, which was submitted by the petitioner within a period of 24 hours, there was no mention with respect to Shipping Bill No.7074421 for which the petitioner claimed rebate. It is submitted that therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd there was no endorsement of the subject ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009 on the Shipping Bill by the Customs Authority of the Port of Export. Even in the triplicate of ARE-1, there was no endorsement certified by the Customs Authority with respect to Shipping Bill No.7074421. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence and considering the material on record, when all the authorities below have concurrently found that the petitioner had not exported the goods of ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009 under Shipping Bill No.7074421 for which they claimed rebate, we are of the opinion that as such no error has been committed by any of the authorities below. It is required to be noted that there are concurre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
