TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat on the basis of intelligence that Merchant Exporter of textile fabrics had fraudulently claimed and obtained the rebate of Central Excise duty on the goods purported to have been exported and further that the goods exported were not the same as mentioned in the duty paying documents, the records pertaining to sanctioned rebate claim of M/s Aggressive, A-2/143 & Shah Nahar Inds. Estate. Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 were taken up for scrutiny. 2.2 M/s Aggressive (the applicant No.1), had submitted all the above said documents along with each of their rebate claims, which were taken up for scrutiny. Initial scrutiny of the documents showed that M/s Aggressive, had contravened provisions of rule 12(1) r/w Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acity of the NOC's issued by the consignee was checked by summons issued to the traders u/s 14 asking them as to produce purchase and sales documents in respect of fabrics sold to M/s Aggressive. Some of the traders responded by submitting written replies that neither they had issued any NOC nor sold any fabrics to M/s Aggressive. Other traders who had issued NOC failed to appear in response to said summons and also did not submit any replies and the summons issued were also returned by the postal authorities with the remark address unknown/not known etc. 2.4 Thus, the applicant had, it appears, contravened Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by claiming rebate on goods which were not exported and also in terms of provision of Notifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rule 210 of Central Excise Rules, 1994 for the reasons in the Show Cause Notice No. 107-108 dated 5-12-2000. 3. Against this order the applicants filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), rejected the appeal as time barred u/s 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without going into merit of the case. 4. In the Revision Application the applicant No.2 made following main pleadings :- (i) That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), has erred in rejecting the appeal as time barred, without considering the actual date of receipt of the Order-in-Original, appealed against, and without offering personal hearing. (ii)  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalties one on the proprietary firm and another on the proprietor, are not justified. (vi) That without prejudice to what is stated above, the applicant says that the ld. Addl. Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the applicant under rule 210 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the maximum penalty to be imposed can be extended upto Rs. 1000/- only, under the provisions of said rule. In view of the above the applicants requested to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. The applicant No. 1 filed Revision Application on following main grounds:- (i) That under Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944, the service of decision, or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T) - Ashok Leyland Ltd., (vi) That clearance are under excise supervision with due endorsement to that effect, the quantity of fabrics exported tallies in shipping bill & AR4. Certificates of exportation from Mumbai Customs authorities on duplicate copy of AR4, clearly indicates the concerned shipping bills no. (vii) That original factory/mill packed condition fabrics are cut and repacked under the physical supervision of Central Excise officers and hence the variation, if at all is solely owing to cutting and repacking and mention of overseas buyer's nomeonclature in the export documents. (viii) That the Ld. Revenue has not at all dispu....