TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the said Notification. As such, there is no merit in the plea of the applicant that the lapse on their part be considered as procedural lapse of a technical nature which may be condoned. - Claim of rightly rejected - Decided against the assessee. - F.No.195/1551/12-RA - ORDER NO. 23/2016-CX - Dated:- 28-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by M/S Xomox Sanmar Ltd., Viralimalai against the Order-in-Appeal No.206/2012 dated 31108.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapally with respect to Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Division-Il, Tiruchirapally. 2. The brief facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) erred in disallowing the rebate claim in respect of ARE-I N.1736 dated 30.12.2010 on the ground the applicant has not given any explanation for non-filing of Bill of Lading. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) erred in disallowing the rebate claim on the ground the applicants failed to file adequate explanation for the discrepancies without appreciating the nature of discrepancies pointed out by the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-in-Original and Order-in Appeal. 7. Government observes that the part rebate claims of ₹ 261381/- was rejected on ground that there is huge variation of weight between AREs-1 and Air Way Bills and as such, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the goods under the said AREs-1 have been exported. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government notes that the original authority rejected rebate claim in respect of 3 AREs-1 for the reasons of non-submission of EP copies/Bill of Lading or due to submission of non-legible copy of Bill of Lading. The appellate authority has discussed in details these aspects and hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced' in respect of ARE 1 No.1744/31.12,2010, it is not the case that the appellant has not filed any copy of Shipping bill with due endorsement' since it was not recorded so in the findings of the impugned order. Substantive compliance is sufficient where factum of export is not in doubt' as held by Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai reported in 2011 (272) EL T 353 (Mad). Hence, in respect of the ARE 1 No.1744/31a12.20/O and for ARE 1 No-1734/29.12.2010, (for which rebate claim was rejected with remarks 'BL not legible'), the lower authority is directed to allow rebate claim after satisfying himself about the fact of export o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
