9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. ORDER The appellant is aggrieved by rejection of refund of duties of excise paid in respect of goods supplied to SEZ unit. 2. The appellants cleared the goods in terms of Notification No. 42/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2011 r/w Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant had also submitted LUT. The validity of the LUT was only up to 30-11-2011. On being pointed out this by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARE-1 they submitted certificate issued by authorized officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned rebate only in respect of three ARE-1 of which duplicate copies were submitted and rejected the rebate claim for the remaining, on the ground that the appellant has not furnished the duplicate copy of the ARE-1's. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. The issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as remittance certificate, mates' receipt, etc., to satisfy himself that the goods have been actually exported. 4. The learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute with regard to receipt of goods at SEZ unit. This is certified by the authorized officer in the ARE-1. The appellant happened to pay the duty only because LUT was not valid during the relevant period. Therefore, appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Instructions, 2005 provides for submission of collateral evidence in case of loss of document. In that case, the rebate in respect of these 10 copies of ARE-1 ought to be allowed. The appellant has not furnished any collateral evidence in respect of four ARE-1 and therefore, the rebate claim in respect of these four ARE-1 is liable to be rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
