TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise Registration No.AAACX0247K)(M001 for the manufacture of Industrial Valves & Spares falling under Chapter 84818030 and 84819090 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing Cenvat credit facility in respect of duties/taxes paid on the inputs, capital and input services. The applicants are clearing their finished goods both for home consumption and for export on payment of duties. The applicants filed a rebate application on 02.06.2011 for Rs. 11,56,593/- under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of the duties paid on the goods exported under 13 ARE-Is during the month of December 2010. The lower authority vide impugned or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the airway bill contains 2 columns namely, one for actual quantity and another quantity for freight and that the weight mentioned in all these cases is only a reference weight and the value as stated in the invoice is final which can be further established by the fact that the full value of the proceeds have been received for such invoices from the overseas customers, which is also evident from the bank realization certificate (BRC) submitted to RBI. 4.3 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there is no dispute with reference to the value of goods referred to ARE-I and there is also no dispute on the fact that the applicant has realized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and allowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 62,721/- in account of the applicant in respect of nine(9) ARE-Is. Regarding remaining four (4) ARE-Is, the original authority rejected part rebate to the tune of Rs. 2,19,253/- on ground that there was discrepancies as regard to flight/vessel date and no. and also in weight between excise documents and export documents. The applicant has challenged this rejection of before Commissioner (Appeals). 9. Government notes that the rejection of above said amount of was on ground of certain discrepancies as regard to vessel/flight no. and date and difference of weight in excise viz-a-viz export documents. The appellate authority has observed that the applicant could not bring any documentary evidences ....