TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Notification it cannot be established that goods which were cleared from factory were the ones actually exported or goods exported cannot be correlated with goods cleared from factory. Government notes that it is an undisputed fact on record that in the present case the goods have been cleared by the applicant from the factory of the manufacturer on invoices only between 19.04.2007 to 23.04.2007 and dispatched to JNPT Container Terminal for stuffing. They had prepared the ARE-I only on 24.04.2007 subsequent to clearance from the factory after the complete consignment was received at JNPT. Not following the basic procedure of export cannot be treated as a minor procedural lapse for the purpose of availing benefit of rebate of duty on impugned export goods. As such, there is no merit in the plea of the applicant that the lapse on their part be considered as procedural laps of a technical nature which may be condoned. - Rebate claim denied. - Decided against the assessee. - F.No.195/254/12-RA - Order No. 10/2016-CX - Dated:- 15-1-2016 - Smt. Rimjhim Prasad, Joint Secretary ORDER: This revision application is filed by applicant M/S Universal Impex, Mumbai, agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to get back duty paid to government exchequer - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4.4 Further, the documents submitted by the applicant establish that the goods had been exported. The applicant in this case has submitted the copies of Shipping Bills. There is an endorsement to the effect that the goods had been exported, There is no dispute with regard to duly payment and there is no dispute whether the goods had been exported or not. There is only a technical lapse, which may please be condoned. 4.5 The applicant in this case has submitted the Original Duplicate copies of ARE-I, Part-B of which is duly endorsed by Customs and also submitted copy of Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading and BRC. There is an endorsement on Part-B of ARE-I that the goods had been exported. There is no dispute with regard to duty payment and there is no dispute whether the goods had been exported or not. There is only a technical lapse of not following the proper procedure as laid down in Para 3 (a)(xi) of the Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT) dated 16.09.2004, which may please be condoned. 5.Personal hearing was scheduled in these cases on 22.06.2015 and 09111.2015. Hearing held on 22.06.2015 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the ground that the applicant did not submit the triplicate and quadruplicate ARE-I to jurisdictional Range Superintendent within 24 hours of the date of clearances and also failed to follow the procedure of self-sealing as prescribed in para 3(a)(xi) of the Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this revision application on the grounds stated in para (4) above. 8.Government observes that as per Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 issued under Rule 18 ibid, the manufacturer exporter registered under Central Excise Rules, 2002 and merchant exporter who procure and export goods directly from the factory or warehouse can exercise the option of exporting the goods sealed at the place of dispatch by a Central Excise Officer or under self sealing. 8.1 The exporter shall present the goods along with 4 copies of application in Form ARE-I to the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of production who shall verify the identity of goods mentioned on the application and the particulars of the duty paid or payable, and if found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association 2005 (187) ELT 162 (S.C.); Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008(231) ELT 3 (S.C.). Also it is settled that a Notification has to be treated as a part of the statute and it should be read along with the Act as held by in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd - 1988(38) ELT 741 (S.C.) and Orient Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 1978 (2) ELT J 311 (S.C.) (Constitution Bench). 9. Government notes that it is an undisputed fact on record that in the present case the goods have been cleared by the applicant from the factory of the manufacturer on invoices only between 19.04.2007 to 23.04.2007 and dispatched to JNPT Container Terminal for stuffing. They had prepared the ARE-I only on 2404.2007 subsequent to clearance from the factory after the complete consignment was received at JNPT. It was only signed by Customs officials and the triplicate copy was submitted to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise on 1802.2008. The impugned goods were thus cleared from the factory wit Out an ARE-I bearing certification about the goods cleared from the factory either under excise sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
