TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenging brand rate fixation ®Rs.16.62 kgs as against ₹ 22.45 kgs. claimed by the applicant. In absence of such documentary evidences the fixation of brand rate by the original authority cannot be faulted with. The appellate authority also discussed the same in detail and Government agrees with the findings of appellate authority. - No infirmity in order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against assessee. - F.No.195/139/12-Cx-RA - No. 09/14-Cx - Dated:- 3-1-2014 - SHRI D.P. SINGH, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s. Gautam silk mills, Mumbai against the order-in-appeal No BC/168/M-III/2011-12 dated 30.11.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-III with respect to order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the applicants and verified by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhandup Division it is found that the applicant is eligible for a drawback rate of ₹ 16.62 per kg as against ₹ 22.45/kg as claimed, with quantity restriction of Export goods at 40000.06 kgs. The applicant is eligible for an amount of ₹ 6,64,801/-. The eligibility has been decided on the basis of the duty paid documents produced for verification. the applicant has not submitted few documents for verification, accordingly the same were not consider for fixing the brand rate. Hence there is quantity restriction of the export goods. (ii) The above rate of drawback is restricted to the export made for the period 24.05.1999 to 23.05.2000 with quantit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abeyance in view of Circular No.39/2001-Cus dated 06.07.2001; we were not issued Brand Rate Letter. When the issue has been settled by Hon'able Supreme Court of India and directed the authorities to dispose of pending claims with the ministry, we approached Joint Secretary, Drawback, Central Board of Excise Customs, New Deli for sanction of Drawback. 4.2 At the time of original verification of our brand rate application in 1999-2000, we had submitted all the original documents including duty pad documents of materials, Commercial Invoices, triplicate copies of Shipping bills, Ar-4s to concerned range authority for verification of the said application. Thereafter, the verified file was forwarded to Commissionerate for further proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the same scheme of DEPB-cum-Drawback scheme. Like us, in the case of the above two exporters also their original brand rate applications pertaining to the year 1999-2000 were lost/misplaced in the office of 3t. Secretary, Drawback, New Delhi. In the case of Topman Exports/Chothani Exports, the concerned Commissionerates did not ask for any original documents. In the case of M/s Topman Exports, all their brand rate application were re-verified and brand rate approval letters issued to them on the strength of indemnity bond furnished to them. In the case of M/s Chothani Exports the brand rate approval was issued, even without my indemnity bond. In the case of both the -above party the brand rate letters were issued posthaste in the year 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of Revision Application. Shri D.P. Singh, Superintendent attended hearing on behalf of respondent and stated that Order-in-Original being legal and proper, may be upheld. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that in impugned case, original authority vide impugned order-in-original dated 22.6.11 fixed the brand rate @Rs.16.62 kgs with quantity ::restriction of 4.0000.06 kgs as against rate of ₹ 22.45 kgs of full' quantity claimed by the applicant. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned order-In-original. Now, the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para,(4). above. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n passed by the Additional Commissioner (BRU), Mumbai III on 22.6.11 i.e. after four months. The appellant had sufficient time to contest the working out by the department before the order was passed. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that they have contested the fixation of Brand rate and quantity restriction as mentioned in the letter dated 15.2.11 before the lower authority. Further, they have failed to submit the relevant documents as agreed to by them during the course of personal hearing. Government finds that in this revision application, the applicants have stated that they add not produce original duty paying documents in respect of 47656.500 kgs due to the fact that the original duty paying documents were depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
