2014 (12) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Aurangabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Modular Office Metallic Furniture. The said goods were cleared to SEZ on payment of Central Excise Duty. The applicants filed 7 (seven) rebate claims of Rs. 5,34,173/-. The department issued show cause notice asking the applicants as to why the rebate claims should not be rejected under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, as the applicants had failed to produce the duplicate copy of ARE-1 from the authorized officer of the SEZ regarding the re-warehousing/receipt of goods in the SEZ. The department could not compare the original ARE-1s submitted by the applicants with the duplicate copy of ARE-1 to be received from the authorized of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consequential relief to the assessee. 4.2 It is not the case of the department that the goods were not exported and the proof of exports are not accepted and since the Department has not disputed and has in fact admitted that the goods were duly exported. It was not proper for the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to reject the genuine claim of rebate on the ground of procedural deficiencies and in action on the part of the Revenue and the non-cooperation between the Revenue's own department cannot take away the substantive right of the assessee. The applicant therefore, respectfully submits that the sanctioning authority has done gross injustice to the assessee by not granting the genuine/legitimate rebate claim. There has bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent case when it is the responsibility of the department either to provide duplicate copies of ARE-1s in a sealed cover to the assessee or post the same to the Rebate sanctioning authority but in both the cases the department has failed to do so accordingly the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 8-8-2013 was attended by Shri R.C. Gupta, advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Shri Chuna Ram, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise attended the hearing on behalf of the respondent-department and stated that Order-in-Appeal being legal and proper may be upheld. ....