1999 (12) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the facts of the cases are that the Asstt. Commissioner rejected the rebate claims in respect of Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 of the table annexed to this order for the reasons that the applicants failed to produce the duplicate copies of duty paying documents (invoices) in respect of the fabrics that were used in the manufacture of the made up articles (manufactured by job workers) exported; that in many cases description of the goods between AR5 and shipping bills are not tallied and that the applicants are not entitled for rebate claim as they have claimed drawback upon exports. The reasons for rejection in respect of Sl. Nos. 3 & 4 of the table annexed are in addition to those three reasons enumerated in respect of Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 above, are that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Basic Excise Manual). That the Asstt. Commissioner asked them to submit copy of duplicate invoice through a letter is factually not correct as no such letter was received. 3.3 By submitting specimen copy of AR5 No. SGPL No. 134/8-9-99 and SGPL No. 172/14-10-99 together with invoice copies and D3 declarations, the ld. advocates averred that as long as the AR5s give the particulars of the fabrics, how much was used and the duty involvement on the goods' under Central Excise certification together with quadruplicate copy of invoice, the rebate cannot be refused. 3.4 That there is no dispute about duty payment character or export. 3.5 In view of the position and relying upon precedent judgments, the ld. advocate pleaded to allow the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to be furnished along with the rebate claim. However, this provision was with reference to claim of rebate under Rule 12(1)(a) which is not the case now in revision, as the exports were effected under bond. Hence to place reliance on this circular, to reject the claim is not proper. 5. The rebate sanctioning authority may call for the quadruplicate invoice in terms of Rule 52A from the manufacturer of the fabrics or the original invoice from the job worker who manufactured the made up articles and process the claims filed. Incidentally the job worker is under the jurisdiction of the rebate sanctioning authority. 6. In view of the above discussions, Government without going into other pleas raised, would allow the Revision Applicatio....