TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty paid goods is self-contradictory and also not found correct on verification by both the lower authority. Even applicant could not satisfy this authority also. - No infirmity in impugned orders - Decided against assessee. - F. No. 195/165-167/2011-RA-CX - Order Nos. 1385-1387/2012-CX - Dated:- 4-10-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate, for the Asseessee. Shri Uday V. Deshpande, Asstt., Commissioner, C. Ex., for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Sewree Terminal-Mumbai against the Orders-in-Appeal No. YDB/847-849/M-II, dated 16-12-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II with respect to Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Chembur-I Division, Mumbai-II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicants are manufacturer and suppliers/exporters of Oils and its preparations falling under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. After due process of supply to out going vessels (Exports) the applicant claimed to detect that whatever supplies were made those were out of duty paid stocks received fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atest clarifications, instructions and procedures read as under : In certain cases, the Board may issue instructions/procedures for exporting the duty paid goods from a place other than a factory or warehouse. In this regard, a general permission has been granted in respect of goods where it is possible to correlate the goods and their duty paid character 4.3 The applicants have received duty paid LSHF/HSD from BPC Refinery at Mumbai to their installation from where the duty paid goods have been exported. This fact is undisputed. Further, the entire LSHF/HSD at the applicant s installation is duty paid. This fact is also not in dispute. Further it can be clearly stated that where correlation can be proved between the goods and their duty paid character, the condition under the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 will be deemed to have been satisfied. Having satisfied this requirement, objection of not directly exporting the goods from factory warehouse or approved place is not correct and legal. 4.4 The applicants state and submit that Board Circular dated 30-1-1997 allows relaxation of conditions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cals - 2006 (73) RLT 325 (G.O.I.) (vii) Mangalore Chemical Fertiliser - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.). 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 8-8-2012 was attended by Ms. Padmavati Patil, advocate on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of revision application and Shri Uday V. Deshpande, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Vikhroli, Mumbai-II on behalf of respondent department. During hearing, respondent being reiterated submission made their written reply dated 8-8-2012, wherein they mainly reiterated as follows :- 5.1 Before filing their refund claim in Form R, the assessee had applied to the Central Excise Authorities of F-II Division, Mumbai-I Commissionerate for acceptance of proof of Export of the product on the basis of the copies of the ARE-1 duly certified by the Customs Officers. These copies of the ARE-1 contained the particulars of the letter of undertaking, which clearly goes to show that no amount of duty was paid on the product LSHF/HSD exported. During the personal hearing Smt. Ragini Ajagaonkar, Deputy Manager Finance and Smt. Maushumi S. Khatu, Assistant Manager Finance pointed out that it was detected after export that the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. In appeal Commissioner (Appeals) uphold the impugned Orders-in-Original. Now applicant has filed these revision applications on the grounds stated in Para 4 above. 8. The applicant is pleading that after exporting the goods under bond/UT-I without payment of duty and after filing proof of export they filed rebate claims and established the correlation of duty paid goods procured by them from M/s. BPCL with the exported goods. In this regard, it is observed that both the lower authorities have come to conclusion that goods exported under Bond (UT-I) cannot be correlated with the duty paid goods procured from BPCL by the applicant. The said correlation could not be found in the relevant documents i.e. ARE-1, Central Excise Invoice, Shipping Bill and also due to the fact that these goods were not cleared for export under Central Excise Supervision as required under C.B.E. C. Circular No. 294/10/97-CX, dated 30-1-1997. Government notes that the prime document for clearance of goods for export is ARE-1 form. The relevant ARE-1 neither specify the manufacturer as BPCL nor declares the exports under rebate claim in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rather, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
