2014 (7) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resent petition, in nutshell, are as under :- 2.01. That the petitioner filed rebate claim of Rs. 2,76,040/- in respect of duty paid goods exported to Germany under ARE-1 No.48/08-09 dated 10/2/2009. On scrutiny of the documents of the petitioner it was found that the petitioner did not submit the copy of the ARE-1 (original copy duly certified by the Customs Authority) and invoice (duplicate copy of transport, in original). It was also found that even the Division Office neither received duplicate copy of the said ARE-1 (in original) and duly authorised by the Customs Authority of the Port of Customs nor the same were submitted by the petitioner in a sealed cover. On perusal of the shipping bill, it was found that there was endorsement on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Constitution of India. 3.00 Mr.Nirav Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that all the authorities below have materially erred in rejecting the rebate claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not followed the procedure which was required to be followed under Rule 18 more particularly of not submitting Original ARE-1. Relying upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of SPL Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India, reported in 2013 (294) ELT 188 (P&H) and decision of this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Union of India, reported in 2012 (280) ELT 507 (Gujarat). It is submitted that on the basis of the other material on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....licable to the facts of the case on hand. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5.00 Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner claimed rebate of Rs. 2,76,040/- in respect of which duty paid goods exported to Germany under ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009. It was the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner exported the goods under Shipping Bill No.7074421. However, on verification and/or on scrutiny of the documents submitted by the petitioner, it was observed that the petitioner did not submit the original copy of the ARE-1 duly certified by the Customs Authority and Invoice (duplicate....