TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show in Central Excise Invoice was different than those shown on ARE-1. Although, the applicant has submitted in their grounds of appeal, that both the description are for the same goods and further submitted that they had indeed mentioned the name of buyer and final destination in Customs invoice which is co-related with the impugned Shipping Bills, there are no findings on these points of the applicant by either of the above authorities. in the commercial invoice and packing list the consignee name is mentioned as Zambezi Shipping Agency LLC Dubai United Emirates and buyer name Is also mentioned as, M/s. Zainab Bottlers Ltd Zanzibar Tanzania which appeared in the Central Excise Invoices/ARE-1s. The endorsement of Customs authorities in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of law, adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claim on the ground that the description given in the Central Excise Invoice, ARE-1s and their export documents do not tally and the same is not permissible. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders-in-original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant party has filed these revision applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 4.1 That Invoice Nos. 12/23-5-2007, 023/29-6-2007 031/24-7-2007 shows name and address of the consignee as M/s. Zainab Bottlers Ltd., Mombassa Area, P.O. Box No. 271, Zanzibar, Tanzania AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the name is not correct. The applicant rely upon the similar case of rebate claim in the case of M/s. Syndicate Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kandivali G.O.I. Order No. 890/2006, dated 29-9-2006. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 10-5-2011 13-6-2011. Shri M A Gomes, Assistant Commissioner appeared for hearing on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of revision application. The respondent department submitted that there is no dispute about export of duty paid goods. But the name and address/port of destination as mentioned in Central Excise Invoice does not tally with that mentioned in ARE-1 and Shipping Bill. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, written/oral submission and the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities in part B of ARE-1 to the effect that goods have been exported/shipped on Board is not disputed by the department. So the goods mentioned in ARE-1 stand exported. Moreover, in a similar issue, case was remanded by GOI order No. 890/2006 dated 29-9-2006, in persuance to which, said Assistant Commissioner Central Excise has already allowed the rebate claim in that case. Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed said GOI order at all. Government observes that there is no dispute of the export of duty paid goods out side India. The commercial invoice also contain the name of buyer in Tanzania. Applicant has received the foreign remittances also and produced BRC. As such, the rebate claims cannot be denied to the applicant under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
