2014 (3) TMI 1041 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim rejected - Held that - Exported goods cannot be correlated with the duty paid goods cleared from factory of manufacture. The applicant contended that they have cleared certain quantity of goods for home clearances and remaining quantity for exports. However, the applicant failed to submit a detailed co-relation chart duly supported by documentary evidences showing that quantity of goods cleared for home consumption and export. They have also failed to submit the legible copies of ARE-1, shipping bill, bill of lading, CB Invoice, commercial invoice application filed by CCE, Bangalore seeking extension of time to export goods, and permission granted by CCE, Bangalore though they had promised to furnish the same in a week s time. Further, the enclosure of verification report of Range Superintendent of Taloja Range is not properly signed by authorized signatory. The stock verification report enclosure having detail of stock is also not signed by Central Excise Superintendent. Under such circumstances, Government finds that the applicant has failed to establish that the duty paid goods cleared from factory of manufacturer were have actually been exported in impugned case. In view of above, Government concurs with detailed findings of Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, finds no reason to interfere with the same. Government finds that rebate of central excise duty is a beneficial legislation and the same is subjected to fulfilment of certain condition. Government finds support from the observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE reported as 2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , and M/s. Paper Products v. CCE reported as 1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that the simple and plain meaning of the wordings of statute are to be strictly adhered to. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Discrepancies in the rebate claim documentation.
2. Verification of the duty-paid status of the exported goods.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for rebate claims.
4. Correlation between the goods cleared from the factory and the goods exported.
5. Allegations of goods being repacked and not in original condition.
6. Rejection of the rebate claim on procedural grounds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrepancies in the rebate claim documentation:
The applicants filed a rebate claim for Rs. 1,33,46,866/- for goods exported under ARE-1 No. 1/2002. Upon scrutiny, several discrepancies were noted, including missing original and duplicate copies of invoices, differences in assessable and FOB values, lack of disclaimer certificates, and missing self-attested documents. The applicants responded by submitting some documents and affidavits for missing ones, but the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the claim to the Maritime Commissioner due to unresolved discrepancies.

2. Verification of the duty-paid status of the exported goods:
The verification process involved multiple authorities, including the Range Superintendent, who confirmed the correctness of some documents but noted the unavailability of others. The Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) rejected the rebate claim, citing significant delays between factory clearance and export, discrepancies in weights, and suspicion about the goods' expiry status. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case, but the Assistant Commissioner again rejected the claim, highlighting issues like the absence of verification reports and discrepancies in the goods' identity.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements for rebate claims:
The applicants argued that the goods were exported and duty paid, supported by various documents like export invoices, shipping bills, packing lists, and bank receipts. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted procedural lapses, such as unsigned annexures and missing verification reports, which cast doubt on the authenticity of the claims. The applicants contended that procedural lapses should not override the substantive fact of export and duty payment, citing various judicial precedents supporting their stance.

4. Correlation between the goods cleared from the factory and the goods exported:
The core issue was whether the goods exported were the same as those cleared from the factory on payment of duty. The government observed that the applicants failed to establish this correlation due to discrepancies in quantities and missing verification reports. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the goods were not in original packed condition and could have been repacked, thus failing to meet the conditions of the Board's Circular No. 294/10/97-CX.

5. Allegations of goods being repacked and not in original condition:
The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner both noted that the goods appeared to be repacked, as indicated by discrepancies in quantities and packaging details. The applicants denied these allegations, stating that only part quantities were exported, and the rest were sold domestically. However, the lack of documentary evidence to support this claim led to the rejection of the rebate claim.

6. Rejection of the rebate claim on procedural grounds:
The applicants argued that the rebate claim should not be denied on procedural grounds when the substantive requirement of export and duty payment was met. The government, however, upheld the rejection, stating that compliance with procedural requirements is essential to establish the duty-paid character of the exported goods. The detailed findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were concurred with, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures.

Conclusion:
The government's decision to reject the rebate claim was based on the applicants' failure to establish the correlation between the duty-paid goods cleared from the factory and the goods exported, non-compliance with procedural requirements, and discrepancies in the documentation. The revision application was thus rejected, upholding the orders of the lower authorities.