TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Application promptly and the above reason for delay appears to be very vague, unclear and an afterthought. Under such circumstances, Government is of considered opinion that the applicant has clearly failed to show sufficient cause which prevented them from filing Revision Application within the prescribed time limit under Section 35 EE. As such, the applicant's application of condonation of delay is liable for rejection in view of aforesaid discussion. Delay not condoned - Revision application rejected. - F.No.195/645/2011-RA-CX - ORDER NO. 01/2016-CX - Dated:- 8-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by M/S Rama Steel Tubes Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 268-CE/Appeal/Ghaziabad/ 2010 dated 24.11.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, (Appeals), Ghaziabad with respect to Order-in-Original No. 91/Rebate/10-11 dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-Il, Ghaziabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Galvanized Steel Pipes /Tubes falling under Chapter Subheading no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dadri for verification but no reply was received in spite of several reminders. Hence, an amount of ₹ 1,54,250 /- pertaining to the said ARE-I No. RST/121/09-10 dated 08.01.2010 was passed not admissible to the applicant. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 91/Rebate/10-11 dated 20.09.2010 sanctioned an amount of ₹ 2,93,477 /- (Rs.4,47,727-Rs.1,54,250 /-). 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Ghaziabad, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 268-CE/Appeal/Ghaziabad/2010 dated 24.11.2010 rejected the appeal of the applicant. 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 along with application for condonation of delay: 4.1. That the appellate authority in the course of disposal of rebate claim chose to ignore substantive evidences like shipping bill, bill of lading, bank realization certificate etc. submitted by the applicant with their rebate claim, evidencing export of goods and receipt of sale proceeds of such transaction. That he mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d are correlated with corrected shipping bill no. 1045171 as also tallied with the details mentioned in .ARE-I no. 121 except wrongly certified shipping bill by the Customs Officer which was subsequently corrected as Shipping Bill No. 1045171 and the same could have been got verified by the revenue and there is no fault of the applicant and the department has also not held the applicant for such mistake done by the Customs Officer and also not denied categorically of such corrections made by the Customs Officers. 5.3. That the details of the ARE-I and the shipping bill no. 1045171, under dispute are co-related with the customs invoice no. 550 dated 07.10.2010, Net Weight 51.150 MT and Bill of lading also contains entry of shipping bill no. 1045171. 5.4. That the revenue has not denied the export of goods under dispute under the aforesaid orders as also clearance made for goods exported on payment of duty and the same has been verified with RG 23 A Il records regarding having debited the duty involved and thus merely because of mis-match of details of shipping bill as occurred on the part of the Customs Officers, which was got rectified under dated signature later on, should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant vide their rebate claim dated 30.03.2010 submitted the original and duplicate copies of subject ARE-I. But they fail to notice the discrepancies in the subject ARE-I No. That on filing the rebate claim by the applicant the department noticed the same and forward to Customs Authorities for rectification. That the rebate claim of the applicant was sanctioned after deducting the rebate claim in respect of ARE1 No. 121 as the same was not admissible to them on the grounds that the cross details of shipping bill no. and ARE-I no. were not found tallied. 7 An application for condonation of delay in filing Revision Application is also filed by the applicant on the following grounds: 7.1. That the applicant was pursuing a wrong remedy, in good faith, before the Tribunal through their previous consultant, who had erroneously filed the appeal before the CESTAT, New Delhi on 23.08.2011 well within stipulated time of 3 months against the order in appeal dated 20104.2011 as received on 23.05.2011 and since then all papers were lying dormant which he returned to the applicant in June 2015. 7.2. That no appeal lie to the CESTAT and the Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned Order-in-Appeal on 23.0812011 but Hon'ble CESTAT transferred the said appeal along with all documents before Joint Secretary, Revision Application, Government of India, New Delhi. However, the applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence supporting the same. 11.1 Government finds no merit in the contention of the applicant regarding filing of appeal before the wrong forum due to incorrect advise of their Counsel, as the notes of guidance of the impugned Order-in-Appeal clearly mentions where appeal would lie in such cases. Also the applicant has failed to place on record any evidence of having filed an appeal in CESTAT or copy of direction from CESTAT. Government, therefore cannot consider exclusion of time spent before CESTAT for purpose of condonation of delay in filing Revision Application. 11.2. Government further notes that the applicant on 2808.2011 only endorsed to Joint Secretary, a copy of Form No. EA-3 which is meant for filing appeal before the CESTAT that too without enclosing any other supporting documents. Upon being informed by this office vide letter dated 07.04.2015, the applicant submitted the Revision Application in proper format Form E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
