Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 903 - HC - Central ExciseRebate claim - non production of complete AR-4 - petitioner has produced not only xerox copies but they are of relevant and germane documents viz. Shipping bills, bill of lading, customs invoices, Mate receipt and bank realization certificate - Held that:- When the proof of export is produced and that act is evidenced by production of the documents referred by us viz. Shipping bill, bill of lading etc., then the claim deserves to be entertained / granted. However, in this case, it has been concurrently found that the original and duplicate copies of AR-4, which bear endorsement of Customs Authority have not been submitted. The Authorities found that in some cases AR-4 did not have the Customs endorsement, whereas in some cases only front part of AR-4 was submitted, whereas it is the back portion on which endorsement is put by Customs. The documents pertaining to proof of exports have been categorized. It is not as if any hyper technical view has been taken because each of the Authorities have referred to other documents produced. They have referred to shipping bills, bill of lading, customs invoices, Mate receipts and bank realization certificate. However, those documents have not been relied upon because their first part has not been submitted and it is only the second part which has been placed on record. That may prove export of certain goods, but would not prove further that those were the same goods removed from the manufacturer's factory. In such circumstances, the findings of fact are based on material produced. They cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. - Decided against assessee.
|