9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. ORDER This appeal is directed against rejection of refund claim. 2. The appellant had cleared a consignment of their excisable product from the factory on 21-11-2008 without payment of duty, for export under ARE-1 procedure in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. The relevant Shipping Bill was filed on 24-11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was not received for over six months. This document was received only on 12-6-2009. Meanwhile, copies of the shipping bill and Bill of Lading were furnished to the Central Excise Range officer on 28-4-2009. The Inspector of Central Excise in the range office, on 28-4-2009 itself, required the appellant to file ARE-1 certified by the Customs authorities as proof of export within time limit. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be claimed by them. 6. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I am of the view that the refund cannot be denied to the appellant in the circumstances of this case. It is not in dispute that the goods were exported on 14-12-2008 as certified by the Customs Officer in PART-B of the relevant ARE-1. This document also indicates that the Customs Officer's certificate was issued as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant to the Central Excise Range Office did not contain the Customs Officer's certificate of the goods covered by the Shipping Bill dated 24-11-2008 having been shipped on 14-12-2008. On these facts and circumstances, there is no reason why it should be held that the appellant violated Condition No. (ii) of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) ibid. The appellant should not have been compelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
