TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate copies of ARE-Is duly certified the duty paid nature of the exported goods. The Show Cause Notice dated 8-12-05 was issued. The personal hearing was held on 10-1-06 attended by one Shri Rajkumar Saini, Purchase Officer but he expressed his inability to produce the copies of invoices and ARE-Is duly certified the duty paid nature of the exported goods by the Central Excise Officer-in-charge of the manufacturer of the goods. He requested to decide the issue of merits. Meantime, the in-charge Deputy Commissioner of supplier of exported goods M/s Sofina Fashions, Boisar, Distt. Thane reported that the supplier has obtained Central Excise Registration for manufacture of goods but no manufacturing activities carried out in the declared registered premises, no purchase or sale of goods to the applicant, no records were maintained and bogus invoices, and ARE-Is were issued to applicant by M/s Sofina Fashions, Boisar. Therefore, the respondent vide his above order-in-original held that one of the basic condition for sanctioning the rebate claim is that the goods cleared for export should be duty paid. However, in the instant case, the Dy. Commissioner (Prev.) Central Excise, Thane-II ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has taken the reasonable steps as required by law and/or in practice to ensure the duty paid character of the goods received from M/s. Sofina Fashion. It is submitted that the impugned order itself recognized the fact that M/s. Sofina Fashion is a registered unit, duly registered with the Central Excise authorities and even the ARE-1s were duly authenticated by the concerned range. The applicant had the copy of the Central Excise Registration Certification No. AGSPD0566EXM002 dated 10-09-04 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bisar-II Division, Thane-II issued to the said M/s. Sofina Fashion and the same fact fulfills the condition of Rule 9(3) of the said CENVAT Credit Rules. 2.6 The impugned order is against the judicial pronouncements in this regard which clearly lay down the responsibility of the receiver of the duty paid goods. 2.7 The applicant relied upon the following case laws : (i) Commissioner of C.Ex, Chandigarh v. Sadashiv Casting (P) Ltd. - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 381 (Trib.-Delhi) (ii) Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-IV - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 967 (Trib.-Delhi) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dy. Commissioner (Prev.) Central Excise, Thane-II is without any adjudication and without providing any opportunity to the applicant to oppose the same and against the Principles of Natural Justice. 4.2 That the Appellate Commissioner erred in putting the responsibilities of the supplier of goods, the said M/s. Sofina Fashions on the Applicant. 4.3 That the Appellate Commissioner failed to appreciate that the responsibility of the applicant as an exporter is the same as of the manufacturer claiming CENVAT Credit as provided in Rule 9(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the applicant has fulfilled the same in letter and spirit. 4.4 That the Appellate Commissioner failed to appreciate that there is no involvement of the applicant in the alleged wrong availment of Cenvat Credit or any other wrong-doing by the supplier, the said M/s. Sofina Fashions. 4.5 That the Appellate Commissioner failed to appreciate that the fact of duty payment has been clearly endorsed by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent of the ARE-I and no action had been initiated by the department annul the same. 4.6 That the applicant has compiled with all the conditions prescribed under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fabrics made from 100% polyester filament yarn/texturised yarn from M/s. Saofina Fashions. The applicant had filed 17 rebate claims pertaining to respective ARE-I as enumerated in the order-in-original. However, during investigation by Central Excise Authorities, it was revealed that the manufacturer-supplier of goods M/s. Sofina Fashions had not done any manufacturing at the registered premises and had issued bogus duty paying documents. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of applicant, holding that M/s. Sofina Fashions though took registration but no manufacturing took place at the registered premises and issued bogus duty paying documents. In this regard, Government observes that the merchant-exporter (the applicant) has reportedly purchased the goods from a manufacturer who was found to have done no manufacturing at the registered premises and the duty paying documents and other documents were found bogus on conclusion of investigation against the manufacturer. So, it has become clear that no goods were manufactured and cleared by M/s. Sofina Fashions and only bogus duty paying documents were issued. Since duty paid character of goods exported were not proved, the ....