2013 (9) TMI 994 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - goods were not exported directly from factory - some cases has not been mentioned correctly - goods were cleared without payment of duty under Bond - goods were exported after expiry of 6 months from the date of removal - triplicate copies of ARE-1 were not submitted - Held that - The procedure laid down in Circular dated 30-1-1997 is not followed by the applicant though in written reply filed by ACCE (Rebate), Raigad, they had claimed to have followed the said procedure. The Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities were not informed about the said export and the goods were cleared for export from godown without supervision/examination by Central Excise Officers, who had to verify the identity of goods and their duty paid character. In such a situation, it cannot be proved that the duty paid goods cleared from factory have actually been exported. As regard claim where proper rebate sanctioning authority is not mentioned on ARE-1 and other claim where the export is stated to be done under bond without payment of duty on the forwarding letter, the condition of the said procedural lapses are of no help since goods are not exported directly from factory or warehouse and said rebate claim also not admissible Condition of export of goods within six months from their clearances from factory is a mandatory condition of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and non-compliance of the same renders the rebate claims inadmissible. Applicant has failed to submit any permission granted by Commissioner of Central Excise for extension of said six months period. As such the said rebate claim is rightly rejected. Triplicate copies of ARE-1 is required to verify duty paid nature of the goods. Commissioner (A) observed that the applicant did not adduce any evidence to prove that triplicate copies of ARE-1 were given to jurisdictional excise officer of the manufacturer for onward submission to the rebate sanctioning authority and in the absence of the same, duty paid on the goods could not be verified. Government is in agreement with findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. - No infirmity in orders of Commissioner (A) - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with direct export from the factory condition.
2. Incorrect mention of rebate sanctioning authority.
3. Goods cleared without payment of duty under bond.
4. Export of goods after the expiry of six months from the date of removal.
5. Non-submission of triplicate copies of ARE-1.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with Direct Export from Factory Condition:
The primary issue was the rejection of rebate claims because the goods were not exported directly from the factory, violating Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The Notification mandates that excisable goods must be exported directly from a factory or warehouse to avail of the rebate benefit. The applicant argued that the goods were stored en route at Bhiwandi before being exported, which they claimed did not violate the condition. However, the Government observed that the applicant neither exported the goods directly from the factory nor followed the procedure prescribed in Circular No. 294/10/97-CX, dated 30-1-1997, which allows for exports from a place other than the factory. The Government upheld the rejection of the rebate claims on this ground.

2. Incorrect Mention of Rebate Sanctioning Authority:
The applicant contended that the name of the rebate sanctioning authority is decided based on the proposed port of shipment, and changes in logistics sometimes necessitate exporting through a different port. The Government noted that procedural lapses in mentioning the correct rebate sanctioning authority were not sufficient to overturn the rejection, as the primary issue of non-compliance with direct export requirements rendered the claims inadmissible.

3. Goods Cleared Without Payment of Duty Under Bond:
The original authority rejected 12 rebate claims on the grounds that the goods were cleared without payment of duty under bond, which contradicted the rebate claim for duty-paid goods. The applicant argued that the goods were cleared for export on payment of duty under ARE-1 and stored en route. The Government upheld the rejection, noting that the applicant did not follow the necessary procedures to prove that duty-paid goods were exported.

4. Export of Goods After Expiry of Six Months from the Date of Removal:
One rebate claim was rejected because the goods were exported after six months from the date of removal from the factory, violating a mandatory condition of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The applicant failed to obtain permission for an extension beyond six months. The Government upheld the rejection, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the six-month condition.

5. Non-submission of Triplicate Copies of ARE-1:
Eleven rebate claims were rejected due to the non-submission of triplicate copies of ARE-1, which are essential to verify the duty-paid nature of the goods. The applicant argued that they requested the triplicate copies from the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent but did not receive them. The Government agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the absence of triplicate copies prevented verification of duty payment and upheld the rejection of these claims.

Conclusion:
The Government found no infirmity in the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the rejection of the rebate claims on all grounds. The Revision Applications were rejected as devoid of merit.

← Previous Next →