9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below. Sr. No. R.A. No. Order-in-Appeal No. & date Order-in-Original No. & date 1. 198/194-199/10-RA 228/09, dated 21-12-2009 R-184/09, dated 28-10-2009 2. -do- 229/09, dated 21-12-2009 R-172/09, dated 22-10-2009 3. -do- 230/09, dated 21-12-2009 R-169/09, dated 22-10-2009 4. -do- 231/09, dated 21-12-2009 R-171/09, dated 23-10-2009 5. -do- 232/09, dated 21-12-2009 R-186/09, dated 30-10-2009 6. -do- 233/09, dated 21-12-2009 R-187/09, dated 30-10-2009 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the M/s. Nov Sara India (P) Ltd., Dehradun engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Oil Filled Equipments/Machinery and their parts. The said party had filed six rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 49,238/- relating to this consignment was therefore rejected considering that the party failed to prove the export of the goods cleared under ARE-1 (ibid). 2.3 Order-in-Original No. R-171/09, dated 23-10-2009 :- The adjudicating authority held that with respect to rebate claim of Rs. 4,11,932/- involving the goods exported to M/s. Oilfield Warehouse & Services P. Ltd. A.C. Jiva International Inc., SEZ, Vishakhapatnam, the patty failed to submit relevant 'bill of export' despite repeated requests. The failure to provide bill of export coupled with failure to submit Bank's certificate for export proceeds realization as corroborative evidence, was held to indicate that the party are not in a position to substantiate their claim that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 3.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal with direction to jurisdictional Asstt./Deputy Commissioner to cause verification regarding genuineness of the documents and endorsement on ARE-1s and after being satisfied with the genuineness of the exports and re-warehousing at SEZ, the rebate claim might be sanctioned by him. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly and unlawfully remanded back the case for de novo adjudication to the jurisdictional Asst./Deputy Commissioner without having such powers vested in her. 3.3 After amendment in Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorrectly showed the date of issue as 1-7-2008 (which was actually 21-8-2008) & need for shipment on 31-7-2008. 4.2 A rebate claim for export amounting to Rs. 1,33,531/- was filed (against three export consignments), out of which, a rebate claim of Rs. 84,293/- was sanctioned; whereas rebate claim of Rs. 49,238/- (covering consignment against ARE-1 No. E/22/08-09, dated 19-5-2008), was rejected; on the ground that the respondents failed to submit shipping on Board Certificate/Mates receipt, showing actual date of shipment. The Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the appeal, on the ground, that shipped on board Certificate was dated 11-6-2008 and had been issued by LEAAP International (P) Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) further opined th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and Services Pvt. Ltd. have a Warehousing service and they have warehoused various goods supplied by Nov Sara India Pvt. Ltd., on behalf of M/s. Jiva International Inc. The respondent submitted a copy of this letter to the jurisdictional Divisional Commissioner vide letter dated 31-1-2011. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 25-11-2011, 29-2-2012 and 18-4-2012. Personal hearing held on 18-4-2012 was attended by Shri Pulak Raj Mullick, advocate and Shri B.B. Gandhi, Manager (Account) on behalf of the respondent, who stated that Orders-in-Appeal being legal and proper, may be upheld. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Orders-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Nos. as mentioned in Sr. No. (1) and (2) of table in Para (1) above, were rejected by original authority on grounds of non-submission of some documents and discrepancies observed in documents. Government finds that Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with in details in respect of two Orders-in-Original and allowed the rebate to respondent. Government concurs with the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) and directs the original authority to allow the rebate claims after carrying out verification as mentioned in Order-in-Appeal in respect of said two rebate claims. 9.2 Government notes that in remaining four cases, the rebate claims were rejected on the ground that respondent failed to submit copies of Bills of Export and relevant BRCs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
