TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se are that the applicants filed rebate claims of duty paid on export clearances made by them. Upon verification of the ARE-I it was noticed that the goods were cleared by the applicants under self sealing and as per AREs-1 they had declared that they are not availing facility of Notification No. 19/2004-CE dt. 06-09-2004 under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As such, Customs Officers had not done the prescribed examination as evidenced from the remarks on the shipping bill that the consignment was not opened for physical examination by the Customs. In terms of the provisio to the para 3 (xiv) of the Notification No. 19/2004-CE dt. 06-09-2004 as amended, if the Superintendent of Central Excise Range seals the containers/packages at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a later date, they had claimed the rebate resulting in contraventions of the provisions of Notification. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Orders-in-Original, applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed these revision applications under section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 In the present case, as per certification recorded on export documents which includes ARE-1 etc. the consignment has been duly examined by the customs official and the export has been allowed. It can be seen that there were no adverse remark on any documents, which proves that due process has alrea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicants have concealed the facts from Excise or customs department as the case may be. Applicant further submits that there is no dispute about quantity cleared, description of goods, number of packages etc. The small technical error as above should not hold a major ground for disallowing legitimate rebate claim as filed by applicant. There are various pronouncements on this ground supporting applicant contention that infringement of procedural conditions cannot be made ground for legitimate claim as allowed by statue. Further, government always influence export and allowed various benefits to the exporters. One of them is rebate claim under excise law. The respondent ought to have considered this basic and when applicant had proved that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been exported. Applicant are therefore eligible for rebate claim as filed for Rs. 3,16,000/- which should be granted to them. Further, the jurisdictional excise authorities cannot challenge an assessment completed by competent authorities of customs. If they have any specific doubt on the said assessment they would have referred the whole issue to appropriate authorities of customs. In the present case while alleging that applicant had not followed due process of valuation norms, the respondent ought to have confirmed the same with appropriate authorities of customs. There is no documentary evidence whatsoever produced by the respondent about valuation issue as has been raised. 4.5 Applicant submits that wordings in Notification No. 19/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... declaration to justify their valuation. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Orders-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed these Revision Applications on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government finds that the applicants can clear the goods from factory premises for export either under Central Excise supervision as mentioned in para 3(a)(i) of the Notification No. 19/2004-CE/(NT) dated 06.09.2004 or under self sealing procedure as prescribed in para 3(a)(ii) of the said notification. The applicants chose to dear the goods from factory for export by following procedure as provided in said section 3(a)(ii). There is no allegation of violation of said provision of para 3(a)(ii). Further, there is no allegation in impugned or....