2013 (6) TMI 686 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - excisable goods not exported after payment of duty directly from a factory or warehouse as stipulated in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - Held that - neither payment of duty nor export of such duty-paid goods is disputed - The applicant having cleared the goods from M/s. Bagmane on Loan License basis does not cease to be manufacture. Further, the goods were stored in warehouse at Bhiwandi, Mumbai which is a registered warehouse of the applicant under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence, the goods were exported from registered warehouse. Further, there is no dispute regarding export of duty-paid goods. Hence, substantial condition of the notification stands complied with. Commissioner (Appeals) has also taken another ground to reject this rebate claim that applicant did not submit copy of Mate Receipt and BRC. Applicant has submitted copies of both the documents. The copy of BRC is for Shipping Bill No. 724498, dated 9-4-2009 and IUV No. AG10/Exp/002/09-10, dated 3-4-2009. Under such circumstance, Government is of opinion that the substantial condition of Rule 18 has been complied with and, rebate claim cannot be rejected. The goods were cleared from factory under Central Excise supervision and ARE-1 is signed by the both the partner. There is endorsement of Central Excise as well as Customs on reverse of ARE-1 stating that goods have been exported vide said Shipping Bill. - rebate claim should not be denied for procedural infraction. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of rebate claim for exported goods stored in a warehouse before export
- Interpretation of conditions for export under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.)
- Compliance with procedural requirements for rebate claim submission

Analysis:
1. Admissibility of rebate claim for exported goods stored in a warehouse before export:
The case involved M/s. Agio Pharmaceuticals Ltd. exporting goods after storing them in their registered warehouse before export to Uzbekistan. The issue was whether the rebate claim of Rs. 50,503 was admissible as the goods were not exported directly from the factory or warehouse, as required by the conditions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The original and appellate authorities had rejected the rebate claim on this basis. However, the government noted that the goods were exported from a registered warehouse, and there was no dispute regarding the export of duty-paid goods. The substantial condition of the notification was deemed to have been complied with, leading to the allowance of the rebate claim.

2. Interpretation of conditions for export under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.):
The key condition in question was clause 2(a) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), which required excisable goods to be exported after payment of duty directly from a factory or warehouse. The government observed that in this case, the goods were indeed exported from a registered warehouse, fulfilling the condition specified in the notification. The applicant's argument that the goods were exported from the warehouse in accordance with the law was upheld, leading to the setting aside of the appellate authority's order.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements for rebate claim submission:
Another ground for rejecting the rebate claim was the alleged non-submission of the Mate Receipt and Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) by the applicant. The government found that the applicant had indeed submitted copies of both documents, including the BRC for the relevant Shipping Bill. The presence of these documents, along with the fulfillment of substantial conditions for rebate claims, led the government to conclude that the procedural lapses should not be a basis for denying the rebate claim. The government set aside the appellate authority's order and allowed the revision application, stating that the rebate claim should not be denied for procedural infractions when substantial conditions are met.