TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing to the Petitioner an opportunity to produce documents to prove the export of duty paid goods in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 read with notification dated 6 September 2004 Order No.1754/10-CX dated 20 December 2010 of D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act 1944 & also placed on the record other orders passed by the revisional authority taking a similar view Garg Tex-O-Fab Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (10) TMI 880 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), Hebenkraft – [2001 (3) TMI 124 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA], Shreeji Colour Chem Industries v. CCE [2007 (10) TMI 523 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], Model Buckets & Attachments (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2007 (2) TMI 520 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) and CCE v. TISCO 2003 (2003 (3) TMI 191 - CEGAT, KOLKATA) Thus as in the present case the Petitioner has inter alia relied upon the bills of lading, banker's certificate in regard to the inward remittance of export proceeds and the certification by the customs authorities on the triplicate copy of the ARE-1 form the rebate sanctioning authority directed to reconsider the claim. - Following decision of UM Cables Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others [2013 (5) TMI 459 - B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 13.05.2009 clearly indicating that the goods shown in ARE-1 and Excise Invoice are the same goods exported under shipping bill, Mate Receipt Bill of Lading. All the documents as attached with rebate claim are all verifiable with each other; the description of the goods exported appear on all the documents submitted. The quantity/weight of goods exported appear in all the documents and also in the daily stock register as is required by Central Excise rules. All the documents such as shipping bill, Bill of Lading, Export Invoice, Mate Receipt, are duly signed by the custom officer, were submitted as proof of export. In light of such documentary evidence the Commissioner ought to have allowed the Appeal filed by the applicants and set aside the Order-in-Original. His decision to the contrary on holding that the due procedure of filing original ARE-1 was not followed without appreciating the circumstances under which the applicants were unable to file the same, is therefore grossly violative of the norms of natural justice in as much as the Commissioner has not rendered any findings on the documents filed by applicants as afore mentioned that clearly evidenced the export of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 27.09.2013 11.03.2014. Hearing held on 11.03.2014 was attended by Shri Rajan Mashelkar, consultant on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the ground of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. In the instant case the rebate- claim was rejected on the ground that applicant failed to produce original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 Form. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government finds that the issue involved in this case was decided by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide order dated 24.4.2013 in the case of UM cables vs. UOI in W.P. No. 3102/13 3103/13 reported as 2013-TIOL-386-HC-MUM-OX. The Hon'ble High Court has observed in para 11, 12, 13, 14 16 , 17 as under:- 11. The Manual of Instructions that has been issued by the CBEC specifies the documents which are required for filing a da/m for rebate. Among them is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s may merely belong to the area of procedure and it would be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes which they were intended to serve at paragraph 11. The Supreme Court held as follows; The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some other may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve. 14. The particulars which are contained in Form ARE-1 relate to the manufacturer of the goods, the number and description of the packages, the weight, marks and quantity of the goods and the description of the goods Similarly, details are provided in regard to the value, duty, the number and date of invoice and the amount of rebate claimed. Part A contains a certification by the central excise officer to the effect inter alia that duty has been paid on the goods and that the goods have been examined Part B contains a certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rebate sanctioning authority that the requirements of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read together with the notification dated 6 September 2004 have been fulfilled. As we have noted, the primary requirements which have to be established by the exporter are that the claim for rebate relates to goods which were exported and that the goods which were exported were of a duty paid character. We may also note at this stage that the attention of the Court has been drawn to an order dated 23 December 2010 passed by the revisional authority in the case of the Petitioner itself by which the non-production of the ARE-1 form was not regarded as Invalidating the rebate claim and the Proceedings were remitted back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after allowing to the Petitioner an opportunity to produce documents to prove the export of duty paid goods in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 read with notification dated 6 September 2004 Order No. 1754/110-CX dated 20 December 2010 of D. P. Singh, Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Ad 1944. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has also placed on the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
