2010 (7) TMI 982 - HC - Central Excise

Revisional jurisdiction of the Government of India - section 35 EE of the Central excise Act, 1944 - rejection of rebate claim - Held that - In the instant case, exporter- respondent has exported the machine on which the duty has already been paid by them and it was accepted by the Revenue. Under the circumstances, mere technical lapse on the part of the respondent No.1 in not obtaining signature of the manufacturer on ARE 1 cannot result in refusing them the benefit of the rebate claims set up by them, which has now been granted to them by the Commissioner (Appeals) - the petition filed by the Revenue challenging the order of Revisional Authority (Govt. of India), is without any substance and the same is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against rejection of rebate claims by Assistant Commissioner.
2. Appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Revisional jurisdiction invoked by Revenue.
4. Writ jurisdiction invoked by Revenue challenging Revisional Authority's order.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petition challenged the rejection of rebate claims by the Assistant Commissioner under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The claims were denied based on reasons such as the machinery not being exported from the manufacturer's factory, the machinery being in use for 7 years, and the absence of the manufacturer's signature on the relevant document (ARE-1).
2. The Respondent appealed this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal and granted consequential reliefs to the Respondent. The Commissioner upheld the right of the Respondent to claim rebate.
3. Unsatisfied with the Commissioner's decision, the Revenue invoked revisional jurisdiction of the Government of India. The Revenue contended that the CENVAT credit reversal during the export of Capital Goods did not constitute duty payment for rebate eligibility. The Revisional Authority, however, relied on specific rules and upheld the rebate claims, rejecting the Revenue's revision.
4. The Revenue, aggrieved by the Revisional Authority's decision, approached the High Court under Writ jurisdiction. The Revenue argued that the rebate claims should be quashed due to the technical lapse of the manufacturer's signature on ARE-1. The Respondent, on the other hand, justified the rebate claims by highlighting the duty payment upon export and the technical nature of the signature lapse.
5. After considering the arguments, the Court found that the duty had been paid upon export by the Respondent, and technical lapses like the missing signature should not deny them the rebate claims. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the Revenue's petition and ruling it without substance. The petition was consequently dismissed, and the rule discharged with no order as to costs.