TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious manufacturers. They filed rebate claim against 52 ARE-1s for total rebate amount of Rs. 57,87,876/- under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. 2.1 On scrutiny it was noticed that instead of original/duplicate copies of ARE-1, endorsed by Customs Office had not been submitted with the rebate claims. Accordingly, deficiency memo/SCN was issued to the respondent by the department. 2.2 The Adjudicating Authority, being the rebate claim sanctioning authority rejected the rebate claims involving duty amount of Rs. 57,87,876/- on the grounds that the original and duplicate copies of AREs-1 had not been produced by the respondent and hence the duty paid nature of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplementary Instructions for ascertaining the duty-paid character/nature/identification of the goods exported, are not fulfilled in the instant case. 4.2 That the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not visualizing the probable loss of revenue by grant of rebate on the basis of reconstructed documents in place of the originals. If the claimant is granted rebate claim on the basis of the reconstructed copies of the required documents, it would open up possibility of the claimant filing claim both with the Jurisdictional Commissionerate as well as with the Maritime Commissionerate. Further, accepting the proof of export, in case of loss of documents, in case of goods exported under Bond, Para 13.7 of chapter of the C.B.E. & C.'s Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence Act, 1872 and therein upheld the High Court view and held that the photo copies cannot be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of the Act and they ought not to have been received since the documents in question were admittedly photocopies, there was no possibility of the documents being compared with the originals. 4.5 The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in relying on following judgments as the facts and circumstances of those cases are entirely different from that of the instant case. 5. Government notes that impugned revision application was earlier decided vide GOI Order No. 246/2011-CX., dated 17-3-2011, wherein order of Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and revision application filed by the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble at the time when the Joint Secretary to Government of India considered the Revision Application filed by the Revenue, the impugned order of the Joint Secretary to Government of India dated 21st March, 2011 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to file of the Joint Secretary to Government of India for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Petitioners are at liberty to place on record the newly obtained documents from the Excise Authorities and the Joint Secretary to Government of India shall pass fresh order on merits after considering the said documents and after hearing the petitioners." 7. Government observes that respondents, in their written submission dated 30-11-2012, have submitted that on instruct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d copy, it is found that there is clear mention of ARE-1 No. and their relevant shipping bill Nos. In this case, Hon'ble High Court has directed to consider the reconstructed copies of ARE-1. 9. It is observed that Government has been taking a view on this issue that in absence of original and duplicate ARE-1s, rebate claim cannot be held admissible. However, facts of this case are distinctly different from fact of those cases where rebate claims were held inadmissible by this authority in absence of original and duplicate ARE-1s. In this case the applicant duly submitted reconstructed copies of ARE-1 duly certified by the Customs and Central Excise Authorities and Hon'ble High Court has directed to consider the same. As such, the s....