2026 (4) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nment of India, Department of Revenue, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. By the impugned order, the Revisional Authority allowed nine rebate claims preferred by the Petitioner but rejected two claims, namely claim no. 25763 dated 22nd February 2007 and claim no. 22488 dated 18th January 2007, aggregating 3,91,092/-. In the present Writ Petition, the Rs. Petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order, insofar as, these two claims are concerned. FACTS IN BRIEF 3. The Petitioner is stated to be a merchant exporter engaged in export of manmade fabrics manufactured by third-party manufacturers. 4. According to the Petitioner, goods were exported around 1st January 2006....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ONER'S SUBMISSIONS 11. Mr. Joseph Thattil, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the exported goods were sealed under supervision of Central Excise officers, evidencing actual export and that the Petitioner had submitted all relevant documents including ARE-1 forms. He contends that the alleged nonavailability of the triplicate copy of ARE-1 forms was merely procedural and stood cured by subsequent submission along with a notarised undertaking and the authorities below have adopted an unduly technical approach despite proof of export. He states that the rejection of rebate claims solely for want of triplicate ARE-1 forms is arbitrary when export itself had taken place and is not disputed and seeks to rely on documents in that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndings. In particular, one of the reasons for rejection of claim no. 25763 was on account of non-submission of proper documentation whilst in respect of claim no. 22488, no adequate clarification explaining discrepancies was produced. This order also records the mis-match in the description of the goods as against the shipping documents furnished by the Petitioner and it further records that despite opportunity, no satisfactory explanation was provided by the Petitioner. 17. Respondent No. 1 thereafter undertook a detailed examination of the record and despite granting relief in respect of nine (out of eleven) claims that were earlier rejected by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it specifically upheld the rejection of the remaining two claims, i....