TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame of M/S. Ispa Exim Pvt. Ltd., as exporter/shipper of the goods. As such, there is mismatch in the name of exporter. Held that:- There is no finding of lower authorities that the duty paid goods have not been exported. In terms of Board's Circular 120/95-cus dated 23.11.1995 and 30.12.2005 dated 12.07.2005 as referred to in impugned Order-in-Original the BRC, GR declaration, export order and invoice should also be to the name of the third party exporter. As such, the merits of the rebate claims need to be re-examined after taking into consideration the documents referred to above. - Order set aside - Matter remanded back for fresh decision. - F.No.195/699/12-RA - ORDER NO. 28/2016-CX - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD JOINT S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 Both the lower authorities have filed to appreciate that the Show Cause Notice specifies the discrepancies in ambiguous terms and thus the SHOW CAUSE NOTICE/Deficiency Memo is totally vague and unspecific and the impugned orders, thus is required to be set aside solely on this ground alone. 4.2 Both the lower aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party exporter has been shown as M/S. Ispa Exim Pvt. Ltd. and the said amendment is issued under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus it is erroneous to say that the name of third party exporter was not mentioned in the shipping bills. 4.6 Both the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that in case of shipping bills no.8345584 dated 10.04.2010 vide a Certificate of Amendments No. S/6ARSB/1203/2011 MSWC/CFS(X) dated 06.092011 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs under Section 149 of the Custom Act, 1962 and the name of M/S. Ispa Exim Pvt. Ltd. was added to the shipping bill and thus it is totally erroneous to say that the name of M/S. Ispa Exim Pvt. Ltd. was not mentioned in the shipping bills. 4.7 Both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing on behalf of department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file, oral written submissions and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7.On Perusal of records, Government observes that the applicant's rebate claims were rejected on the ground that the relevant export documents are not matching as far as declaration of name of exporter is concerned and therefore, there is contravention of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification Non 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forth coming from the impugned orders whether the same have been considered or not. There is no finding of lower authorities that the duty paid goods have not been exported. In terms of Board's Circular 120/95-cus dated 23.11.1995 and 30.12.2005 dated 12.07.2005 as referred to in impugned Order-in-Original the BRC, GR declaration, export order and invoice should also be to the name of the third party exporter. As such, the merits of the rebate claims need to be re-examined after taking into consideration the documents referred to above. 8.3 The applicant has also relied upon decision of the Government in case of M/S. Ikea Trading (India) Ltd., 2003 (157) ELT 359 (GOI), and contended that the lower authorities have failed to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
