2018 (6) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat they had cancelled the ARE-1 No. B061/2015-2016 dated 23.06.2015 pertaining to export of goods, on payment of duty of Rs. 11,69,079.29 under invoice No.EI-1516500064 dated 23.06.2015. Thereafter, the assessee filed a refund claim in form Annexure No. 28 dated 02.11.2015 for refund of the above amount of Rs. 11,69,079.29 on the ground that the same was erroneously paid and that the export made under ARE-1 above was cancelled and therefore the export duty erroneously debited in their Cenvat Account No. RG.23.A.II Sl.No. 316 dated 23.06.2015 has to be refunded. They also further pleaded that the said goods were cleared vide invoice No.EI 1516500180 dated 26.09.2015 under ARE-1 No. B183/2015-16 dated 26.09.2015 after payment of central exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e export had actually happened, making it impossible for the Range officer to ascertain physically as to whether the said goods were retained in the factory premises after the abandoned export on 23.06.15 and that the same were exported subsequently on 26.09.2015. iii) The daily stock account of the factory is the basic document to substantiate their claim that the subject goods were retained on 23.06.2015 and duty accounted in the Stock Register and subsequently the same were exported on 26.09.2015, the Opening Stock Register submitted by them reveals that as on 26.09.2015, the opening Balance of stock is 0 (nil) and quantity manufactured is also Nil. In such a situation, if the said quantity of goods had been retained in their factory p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leared. The Commissioner has further stated that the appellant was not eligible for refund also for the reason that instead of substantiating their claim for refund, they should have maintained proper stock account and should have provided proper documentary evidence. 7. I see from the materials placed before me that the appellant has only been arguing vehemently that its first ARE-1 was cancelled which fact was not brought to the notice of the concerned official in time which is a condition precedent since the arguments, allegations and counter allegations howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. This is also in addition to the fact that the goods alleged to be un-cleared was also required to be established to the situation of the....