2019 (5) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the appellant informed the office of the adjudicating authority vide their letter dated 07.10.2015 intimating that 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lation of export vide ARE-1 No. B061/2015-16 dated 23.06.2015 only on 07.10.2015 ie., after a lapse of more than 3 months from the cancelled ARE-1 and more than 10 days after the 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e when he takes me through the first ARE-1 and the second ARE-1 forms, wherein, there is no change in the quantity or the price except with regard to the foreign exchange rate and this fact has never been disputed by the lower authorities and therefore it can be safely assumed that both forms of ARE-1 are referring to the same/only one invoice. Further, it is a case where the goods were intended to be cleared/removed on payment of duty and not on bond, which fact is also not disputed by the authorities below either in the SCN or in the subsequent orders and therefore, I am of the opinion that the procedures prescribed would not apply to the case on hand. It is a case where goods were exported by the appellant under the subsequent ARE-1 for ....