2011 (7) TMI 1093 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate - duty paying documents - Scrutiny of documents submitted by respondent revealed that all the said documents pertain to M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd., Unit-II, Mathura. Thus the manufacturer (Ginni Knit Processing, Mathura) did not submit any evidence in support of payment of duty on invoices issued by them - The original authority held that rebate claimant was not a manufacturer and the manufacturer had not paid the duty thus, the rebate of duty cannot be claimed by M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd., Unit-II, Mathura, in terms of Section 11B of CEA, 1944. Held that - there is apparently a grave error of law on the part of the party which can not be brushed aside as a technical or procedural lapse - Government observes that this is case of clerical/computer printing mistake which Department has ignored. In fact, all the particulars i.e. Central Excise Registration No., address, Cenvat debit entry No. etc. on the said invoices are of M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd., Unit-II and only the name of unit is misprinted. Department has not considered these vital facts and acted in a mechanical manner especially when they have admitted that there is no unit in the name of M/s. Ginni Knit Processing. Government observes that there are catena of Court s judgments that export benefits should not be denied on the ground of procedural lapses, when substantial condition of any scheme/benefit is complied. In the instant case, the substantial condition of payment of duty and export of goods is complied and hence rebate claim can not be rejected on such technical procedural lapses - revision rejected - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rebate claim rejection based on duty payment evidence discrepancy.

Detailed Analysis:
The revision application was filed against the order-in-appeal rejecting 15 rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue arose when the Excise duty paid invoices were issued by a unit not registered with the Central Excise Department, leading to a discrepancy in duty payment evidence. The original authority held that the rebate claimant was not a manufacturer and thus not entitled to claim rebate. Subsequently, all rebate claims were rejected. The respondent appealed, and the appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondent.

The Department contended that the duty paying documents issued by the unregistered unit were not supported by any evidence, questioning the claimant's status as a manufacturer based on the invoices issued. The respondent clarified that the unit's name change was pending formalities, and they continued operations under the existing name. The registration number and other details on the documents matched the respondent's records, indicating a clerical error in the unit's name.

The Government observed that the respondent and the unregistered unit were one and the same, evidenced by various cross-references and matching details on export documents. The clerical/computer printing mistake in naming the unit was highlighted, emphasizing that substantial compliance with duty payment and export requirements should not be overshadowed by procedural lapses. The Government upheld the appellate authority's decision, citing compliance with essential conditions for rebate claims.

In conclusion, the revision application was rejected for lacking merit, and the appellate authority's decision was upheld. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantial compliance over procedural errors in determining rebate claim eligibility.