9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otally amounting to Rs. 2,75,472/- before the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) Central Excise, Raigad for rebate of Central excise duty paid on the goods cleared under ARE-1 No. 23, 22, 25 and 21 dated 29-12-05, 6-12-05, 4-2-06 and 5-12-05 respectively. 2.2 On scrutiny of the claims by the Asstt. Commissioner (Rebate), Raigad it was observed that original, duplicate and triplicate copy of ARE-1, duplicate copy of invoice were not enclosed with the said rebate claims. The sailing date on mate receipt does not match with date of bill of lading. Also letter dated 3-8-06 addressed to Maritime Commissioner, Central Excise, Raigad mentioned that M/s. Garg Tex-O-Fab Pvt. Ltd. are merchant-exporters, whereas from ARE-1 and Central Excise Invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Letter F.No. 17/19-C.X.- 11/51, dated 23-5-1955. There is no dispute regarding duty payment and export. The law is settled that substantial benefits granted by the law cannot be denied on technical grounds. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the rebate claims on technical grounds cannot be upheld and has to be set aside. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant Commissioner has filed this Revision Application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 3.1 That the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has neither answered the point regarding the finding of the Maritime Commissioner that how the goods shall be shipped on board after the ship h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fundamental criteria as envisaged in para 8.4. Part I Chapter 8 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions for ascertaining the duty paid character/nature/identification of the goods exported, are not fulfilled. 3.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred not visualizing the probable loss of revenue by grant of rebate on the basis of photocopies of the documents in place of the originals as discussed hereinafter. The respondent while filing claim of rebate is required to submit the photocopies of (i) Export Promotion Copy of shipping Bill & (ii) Bill of Lading along with original copy of ARE-1 and Invoices issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Much importance is given to the originality of the documents namely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich they relate to. This view is neither correct nor acceptable, as there is no provision in Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder for granting rebate on the basis of re-constructed/zerox copies of the statutory documents. Therefore, it is felt that the requirement of original statutory documents is not merely a formality but it is an essential requirement for establishing sufficient proof of export of goods and payment of duty in the instant case. 3.5 The issue in dispute in the present case is squarely covered in an identical set of circumstances in the following cases holding that the basis of xerox copies of documents have no evidence and liable to be misused as any number of copies can be made from one document. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Supdt. has also certified the duty payment and in lieu of triplicate issued the attested copy of ARE-1 in sealed cover. The Preventive Officer of Customs showing therein the mate receipt No. & date and certified the physical export signed the shipping bill as well as ARE-1. We are manufacturer-exporter and whatever cleared has been exported. The goods exported suffered proper duty and also the jurisdictional officers have certified the same and we have received foreign remittances in this case when the physical export is proved other procedural or technical mistakes needs to be condoned in the interest of export. 4.3 That if the Maritime Commissioner had any doubt the genuineness of the documents he could have very well referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping bills by showing the mate receipt number and date of sailing. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 18-8-10. Shri Ayappan Kutty, authorised representative appeared on behalf of the respondent and reiterated the submissions of their letter dated 18-8-10. 6. Government has considered both oral and written submissions of the respondent and written submissions of the applicant and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. From the perusal of records, Government observes that the Asstt. Commissioner rejected the rebate claims as the applicant could not produce the original documents i.e. original, duplicate & triplicate copies of the ARE-I as required under the provisions of Notification No. 19/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
