2014 (12) TMI 770

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....two Shipping Bills No. 2088079, dated 24-4-2009 and 2113458, dated 22-6-2009 exported finished men's leather shoes. They have claimed drawback through EDI System. While processing the bills for drawback in EDI, a query was raised to produce Cenvat non-availment certificate in respect of shipping Bill No. 2088079, dated 24-4-2009. Since the applicant did not reply to the query for more than 15 days, the drawback amount was made zero and the applicants were asked to file supplementary claims with relevant documents. In respect of Shipping Bill No. 2113458, dated 22-6-2009, the applicants were asked to file the supplementary claims with relevant documents as the drawback quantity was greater than the item quantity. The applicants filed their t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice that revision application is to be filed before the Central Excise Commissionerate. Therefore, it took some time to re-draft the appeal/Revision Application papers. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 20-9-2013 was attended by Shri Durairaj, Advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. The Department vide their written submission dated 9-4-2013 apart from reiterating the contents of the impugned Order-in-Appeal stated that the applicant filed second supplementary claim in respect of same shipping bills on 5-7-2012 suppressing the fact that earlier supplementary claim in respect of the same shipping bills were rejected as time-barred. 6. Government has carefully gone th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s on 7-1-2011, which were rejected by the original authority as 'time-barred'. Commissioner (A) upheld the said orders rejecting supplementary claims. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 9. Government observes that the applicants filed drawback claims in EDI System. They were raised query for submission of documentary evidence, showing non-availment of Cenvat credit and also some other relevant documents. The applicant neither replied to the said queries, nor produced the said documents. Applicant has not contended that such queries were not communicated to them. The applicant as an exporter was duty bound to rectify deficiencies and reply to query as pointed out by the depa....