9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appropriate rate under Section 11AB and also imposed penalty equal to amount of duty under Section 11AC ibid as detailed below: Sl. No. OIO No. & date ARE-1 No. & date SCN No. & date Duty Demand confirmed with interest & penalty imposed (Rs.) 1. 48/DC/CE/SNP/Kol-VII/09-10 dated 10.3.10 29/BESCO/Exp./08-09 dt. 12.2.09 V(15)52/CE/ADJN/SNP/BESCO/KOL-VIII/2009/229 dt. 2.2.10 Rs. 283581/- as duty + interest at appropriate rate + penalty Rs. 283581/- 2. 47/-DC/CE/CE/SNP/Kol-VII/09-10 dated 25/BESCO/exp./08-09 V(15)49/CE/ADHB/ SBO/BESCO/KOL-VII/2009/2331 dt. 2.2.10 Rs. 260682/- as duty + Interest at appropriate rate + penalty Rs. 260682/- The demand of duty arose for failure on the part of the applicant to submit th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted on 09.02.1020 after expiry of one year from the date of clearance from factory. v. Bank Remittance Certificate submitted does not bear any signature of Bank Officer. vi. Met. receipt copy also not submitted by the applicant. In respect of ARE-1 No.29/ Besco/Expo/08-99 dated 12.02.2009 i. Goods cleared from the factory under ARE-1 dated 12.02.2009; whereas Export invoice date is 05.02.2009. ii. Goods cleared from the factory under ARE-1 dated 12.02.2009, whereas Shipping Bill date 11.02.2009. iii. Bank Remittance Certificate submitted does not bear any signature of Bank Officer. iv. Met. receipt copy also not submitted by the applicant. Also copies of all the documents are very hazy and illegible that relevant particulars are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars from customs department by virtue of Para 13.4 and 13.7 of the procedure prescribed by the department in this regard, mentioned supra. Invoice no. is indeed Expo/R-010/0165 dt 02/02/09, but due to typographical mistake 0165 has been written as 01/65 on some documents. This is an ignorable mistake. Export Price, in Rupees, in the ARE-1 and Bill of Export are different due to variation of rate of exchange of Euro on the dates of preparation of the ARE-1 and Bill of Export. Shipping Bill does not bear the Signature of master of vessel. It is not a lacuna on our-part and for such lacuna the proof of export cannot be dis-admitted. Preparation of two different invoices for custom purpose & Export purpose are not any mistake nor irregu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able. 4.4 Regarding unsigned Bank Remittance Certificate, we would like to state that the certificates are computer generated. So, exempted from signature. However, we have got the said certificates signed by Bank officials and submitted as part of Proof of export. 4.5 As to the different amount of export value, in Euro, shown in ARE-1 No.25/BESCO/EXPO/08-09 and related Export invoice, we clarify that the export consignment consists of 76 Pcs Automatic Coupler 'E' Type 401.80 Euro & 90 Pcs of Yoke @ 115 Euro, by which Total Price comes to-40886.80 Euro. The price of Automatic Coupler 'E' Type, just before exportation, got amended to Euro 355.20 per pcs., by negotiation between us and our buyer and due to that amendment tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed for hearing on 27.11.12, but he Learned Departmental Representation stated that it is a case of export of goods, in contrast to its earlier stand, so, argued that instead of appeal to Tribunal, proper forum for this case is to file an application before the Govt. of India, under Section 3SEE. Hon'ble Tribunal therefore dismissed the subject Appeal vide its order No.S-1536/A-847/Ko1/2012 dated 29.11.12, received by post in our office on 6.12.12. Filing of the revision application is in pursuance of the said CESTAT's order. As filing of the application got delayed due to pendency of the appeal before CESTAT, an application for condonation of delay is being filed, requesting for admittance of the instant revision application and to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W.P. No.10102/11 vide order-dated 25.4.2012, have held that period consumed for perusing appeal bonafidely before wrong forum is to be excluded in terms of Section 14 of Limitation Act 1963 for the purpose of reckoning time limit of filing revision application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944. The ratio of above said judgment is squarely applicable to this case. Government finds that keeping/in view the above judgments, the revision application is filed within stipulated .period of ,3 months after excluding time taken for pursuing appeal before CESTAT. As such, Government takes up the revision application for decision on merit. 9. Government notes that the duty demand was confirmed on the ground of non-submission of valid p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
