TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly mention relevant ARE-1 No., Excise Invoice No., amount of duty paid etc. From perusal of sample copies of the endorsement of custom authority on reconstructed copy, it is found that there is clear mention of ARE-1 No. and their relevant shipping bill Nos. - original authority directed to verify the authenticity and veracity of reconstructed copies of ARE-1 and sanction the rebate claim in accordance with law if the said documents and the rebate claims are found in order. The respondents are directed to submit all the said documents before adjudicating authority. - Decided in favour of assessee. - F. No. 198/142/09-RA-De novo - Order No. 396/2013-CX - Dated:- 17-5-2013 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary ORDER This revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals with consequential relief. 4. Being aggrieved, the applicant Commissioner had filed this revision application on the following grounds : 4.1 The order of Commissioner (Appeals) is in appropriate and not justifiable inasmuch as it appears that the condition, limitation and procedure prescribed in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, for grant of rebate of duty on export of goods have not been adhered to in the instant case. As per the provisions (3)(b)(1) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended, claim of the rebate of duty paid on all excisable goods shall be lodged along with original copy of the ARE-1 to the Asstt. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods have actually been exported. However, no parallel provisions has been provided for claim of rebate in case of loss of documents when goods are exported under claim of rebate, and in the absence of such a procedure, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding the condition of submission original/duplicate copy of ARE-1, in original as procedural. 4.3 The issue in dispute in the present case is covered in the following cases holding that the basis of photocopies of documents have no evidence and liable to be misused as any number of copies can be made from one document. 1. J. Yashodha v. Shobha Rani - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 458 (S.C.) 2. CCE, Surat-II v. Mercury Plast - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 595 (Tri.-Mum.) 3. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revision dated 21st March, 2011 whereby the Revision Application filed by the Revenue has been allowed and the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) has been set aside and held that the petitioner is not entitled to rebate claim in respect of the exports effected by the petitioner. On perusal of the order of the Joint Secretary to Government of India, it is seen that in the present case all the original ARE-1 being lost, the petitioner was required to reconstruct ARE-1 duly certified by the Authorities under the Customs Act/Central Excise Act. Since these requirements as specified in the letter of the Board dated 23rd May, 1955 were not complied with, the rebate claim of the petitioner was rejected. During the pendency of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uashed the GOI order dated 17-3-2011 and remanded the case back to this authority for consideration. They have requested to accept the said reconstructed copies of ARE-1 duly endorsed by Customs and Central Excise authorities, and allow the substantial benefit of rebate claims. 8. Government notes that they have submitted reconstructed copies of ARE-1 signed by the custom authorities and also submitted certificate from concerned range officers of excise to the effect that duty have been paid in respect of goods cleared for export under impugned ARE-1s. These certificates were not submitted before this authority during first round of revisionary proceedings, which have now been obtained by the respondent on direction of Hon ble Bombay Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
