TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 952
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise Act 1944, along with interest at the appropriate rate under Section 11AB and also imposed penalty equal to amount of duty under Section 11AC ibid as detailed below: Sl. No. OIO No. & date ARE-1 No. & date SCN No. & date Duty Demand confirmed with interest & penalty imposed (Rs.) 1. 48/DC/CE/SNP/Kol-VII/09-10 dated 10.3.10 29/BESCO/Exp./08-09 dt. 12.2.09 V(15)52/CE/ADJN/SNP/BESCO/KOL-VIII/2009/229 dt. 2.2.10 Rs. 283581/- as duty + interest at appropriate rate + penalty Rs. 283581/- 2. 47/-DC/CE/CE/SNP/Kol-VII/09-10 dated 25/BESCO/exp./08-09 V(15)49/CE/ADHB/ SBO/BESCO/KOL-VII/2009/2331 dt. 2.2.10 Rs. 260682/- as duty + Interest at appropriate rate + penalty Rs. 260682/- The de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.02.2009. iv. Goods cleared from factory on 06.02.2009, whereas Proof of export submitted on 09.02.1020 after expiry of one year from the date of clearance from factory. v. Bank Remittance Certificate submitted does not bear any signature of Bank Officer. vi. Met. receipt copy also not submitted by the applicant. In respect of ARE-1 No.29/ Besco/Expo/08-99 dated 12.02.2009 i. Goods cleared from the factory under ARE-1 dated 12.02.2009; whereas Export invoice date is 05.02.2009. ii. Goods cleared from the factory under ARE-1 dated 12.02.2009, whereas Shipping Bill date 11.02.2009. iii. Bank Remittance Certificate submitted does not bear any signature of Bank Officer. iv. Met. receipt copy also not submitted by the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not responsible for illegibleness of Rubber Stamps of the customs Officer. Department could have verified the particulars from customs department by virtue of Para 13.4 and 13.7 of the procedure prescribed by the department in this regard, mentioned supra. Invoice no. is indeed Expo/R-010/0165 dt 02/02/09, but due to typographical mistake 0165 has been written as 01/65 on some documents. This is an ignorable mistake. Export Price, in Rupees, in the ARE-1 and Bill of Export are different due to variation of rate of exchange of Euro on the dates of preparation of the ARE-1 and Bill of Export. Shipping Bill does not bear the Signature of master of vessel. It is not a lacuna on our-part and for such lacuna the proof of export cannot be dis-admi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments have been submitted for your Honours kind perusal and consideration. These documents are very much readable. 4.4 Regarding unsigned Bank Remittance Certificate, we would like to state that the certificates are computer generated. So, exempted from signature. However, we have got the said certificates signed by Bank officials and submitted as part of Proof of export. 4.5 As to the different amount of export value, in Euro, shown in ARE-1 No.25/BESCO/EXPO/08-09 and related Export invoice, we clarify that the export consignment consists of 76 Pcs Automatic Coupler 'E' Type 401.80 Euro & 90 Pcs of Yoke @ 115 Euro, by which Total Price comes to-40886.80 Euro. The price of Automatic Coupler 'E' Type, just before exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 in consultation and advice of the Registry. The appeal was duly received, accepted and placed for hearing on 27.11.12, but he Learned Departmental Representation stated that it is a case of export of goods, in contrast to its earlier stand, so, argued that instead of appeal to Tribunal, proper forum for this case is to file an application before the Govt. of India, under Section 3SEE. Hon'ble Tribunal therefore dismissed the subject Appeal vide its order No.S-1536/A-847/Ko1/2012 dated 29.11.12, received by post in our office on 6.12.12. Filing of the revision application is in pursuance of the said CESTAT's order. As filing of the application got delayed due to pendency of the appeal before CESTAT, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.5529/11 in the case of M/s High Polymers Ltd. and Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s EPCOS India Pvt. Ltd. in W.P. No.10102/11 vide order-dated 25.4.2012, have held that period consumed for perusing appeal bonafidely before wrong forum is to be excluded in terms of Section 14 of Limitation Act 1963 for the purpose of reckoning time limit of filing revision application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944. The ratio of above said judgment is squarely applicable to this case. Government finds that keeping/in view the above judgments, the revision application is filed within stipulated .period of ,3 months after excluding time taken for pursuing appeal before CESTAT. As such, Government takes up the revision app....