9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IO, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of revision application are that the applicant filed rebate claims for Rs. 11,48,524/- on 1-6-2012 against the duty paid export of goods for which LET export orders were given on 25-2-2011 by the Customs authorities. However, their claims were rejected by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on the ground that all the rebate claims had been filed after more than one year of the export of the goods and accordingly these were time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The applicant's appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) is also rejected vide above mentioned OIA. Hence, the applicant has filed the revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/- in compliance of Additional Commissioner's Order-in-Original No. 11/RJ/Adj/2011-12, dated 21-11-2011. The brief background before the above adjudication by the Additional Commissioner is that prior to export of the goods on 25-2-2011 the goods had been seized for the reasons that there were differences in the weight of consignments mentioned in ARE-1s/excise invoices viz-a-viz shipping bills and the containers were not sealed with one time temper proof bottle seal as prescribed in Board's Circular dated 2-1-2006. However, these goods were provisionally released for being exported on furnishing of bond and bank guarantee on the request of the applicant and ultimately the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and the applicant had cleared the goods for export in normal course under self-assessment procedure without resorting to any procedure of provisional assessment and thus provisional assessment was not warranted in this case even otherwise. In the revision application also these facts have not been controverted by the applicant and no evidence has been produced to establish that there was any provisional assessment of duty in this case. On the contrary as per para 5 of the revision application itself the goods were seized by the Jurisdictional authorities due to misdeclaration of weight and non-sealing of the containers with temper proof bottles etc. which did not involve any issue relating to valuation of goods or rate of duty. No letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
