TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....32/09, dated 21-12-2009 R-186/09, dated 30-10-2009 6. -do- 233/09, dated 21-12-2009 R-187/09, dated 30-10-2009 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the M/s. Nov Sara India (P) Ltd., Dehradun engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Oil Filled Equipments/Machinery and their parts. The said party had filed six rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the grounds that they had exported the subject excisable goods on payment of Central Excise duty. The part of rebate claim not sanctioned/rejected by the adjudicating authority on the following grounds :- 2.1 Order-in-Original No. R-184/09, dated 28-10-2009 :- The adjudicating authority found that in case of the two consignments cleared under ARE-1 Nos. E/67/08-09, dated 19-7-2008 and E/72/08-09, dated 31-7-2008, the bill of lading was shown issued on 1-7-2008, whereas on shipped on board certificate, it was shown generated on 1-8-2008 and as the party could not explain this discrepancy, the amount of rebate of Rs. 65,533/- relating to these two consignments was rejected considering that the party failed to prove the export of the goods cleared under ARE-1s (ibid). For th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Orders-in-Appeal has allowed all the six appeals filed by the party with direction to the Asst./Deputy Commissioner of the jurisdiction to cause verification regarding the genuineness of the documents and endorsement on ARE-1s etc. filed by the party in support of their claim and being satisfied with the genuineness of the exports and re-warehousing at SEZ, the rebate claims may be sanctioned by him. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant department has filed these revision applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 3.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal with direction to jurisdictional Asstt./Deputy Commissioner to cause verification regarding genuineness of the documents and endorsement on ARE-1s and after being satisfied with the genuineness of the exports and re-warehousing at SEZ, the rebate claim might be sanctioned by him. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly and unlawfully remanded back the case for de novo adjudication to the jurisdictional Asst./Deputy Commissioner without having such powers vested in her. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hose on Shipping Bill, bill of lading etc., which gives a credence to acceptability to proof of exports; and directed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to verify the genuineness of the claim, w.r.t. the bill of lading, Shipping Bill and shipped on Board certificate, from the concerned jurisdictional Customs authority. The respondent filed a copy of the original SOB certificate with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. 4.3 In all these appeals, the common dispute was non-submission of Bank Realization Certificates. (BRC's); which were latter on filed in original on 19-2-2010, in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) (under the cover of letter dated 18-2-2010). The Commissioner (Appeals), gave a categorical finding that BRC's particulars match with other documents like Export invoice/Commercial Invoice etc.; and which establishes that export proceeds had been realized and BRC's were the ultimate proof of receipt of export consignment of SEZ Unit. The Commissioner (Appeals), directed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, to verify from the SEZ source, about the actual date of receipt of goods at SEZ genuineness of the endorsement on the ARE-1, with re-warehousing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indings of Commissioner (Appeals) are not challenged. 9.1 Government notes that the rebate claims covered vide Order-in-Original Nos. as mentioned in Sr. No. (1) and (2) of table in Para (1) above, were rejected by original authority on grounds of non-submission of some documents and discrepancies observed in documents. Government finds that Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with in details in respect of two Orders-in-Original and allowed the rebate to respondent. Government concurs with the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) and directs the original authority to allow the rebate claims after carrying out verification as mentioned in Order-in-Appeal in respect of said two rebate claims. 9.2 Government notes that in remaining four cases, the rebate claims were rejected on the ground that respondent failed to submit copies of Bills of Export and relevant BRCs. Government observers that in terms of Para (5) of Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006, the supply from DTA to SEZ shall be eligible for claim of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 subject to fulfilment of conditions laid thereon. Government further observes that the said Rule 30 of....