Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed an order of the revisional authority dated July 21, 2010.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had exported three shipments of Pyrolisis Gasoline (Py Gas) on payment of excise duty. The Py Gas was produced by using Naptha as raw materials which was imported by the petitioner in terms of the Advance Licence dated September 1, 2003. Imported Naptha is exempt from customs duty. The petitioner being entitled to benefits of the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme applied for the same. The rebate claims made by the petitioner in terms of the DEEC Scheme were accompanied by copies of ARE - 1 Forms duly signed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-II, Haldia-II Division and the Preventive Officer of the Customs. The authorities did not allow the rebate. On the contrary, a show cause notice dated August 24, 2004 was issued alleging that, the exports contravene the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that, the rebate claims cannot be sanctioned. The petitioner replied thereto. The show cause notice dated August 24, 2004 was adjudicated upon and an order in original dated December 20, 2005 was passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal therefrom. Such appeal was allowed by an order dated March 29, 2007. The department filed a revisional application which was disposed of by the impugned order dated July 21, 2010.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the revisional authority erred in reversing the order under appeal and disallowing the claim for rebate. He has submitted that, the ARE-1 Form is conclusive evidence of the exports occurring in terms of the contents of the ARE-1 Form. The ARE-1 Forms were duly sanctioned by the Government Officers. Such ARE-1 Forms are not under challenge by the department. Therefore, the revisional authority ought not to have reversed the finding rendered by the order in original. He has referred to various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the notification dated September 6, 2004 in support of his contentions. He has also relied upon (UM Cables Limited v. Union of India, 2013 293 ELT 641 (Bom.)) in support of his contentions.;