2014 (3) TMI 1042 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claims rejected - admissibility of rebate claim - Held that - The lower authorities have rightly held that it was not possible to confirm the payment of duty in these cases. The fundamental requirement for determining admissibility of rebate claim is that export of duty paid goods is proved beyond doubt. In this case the duty paid nature of goods is not proved and therefore rebate claim are rightly held inadmissible to the applicants under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Government does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Rebate claims filed by the applicant
- Proper payment of duty on exported goods
- Submission of triplicate copy of ARE-1 form
- Appeal against rejection of rebate claims
- Consideration of different schemes for duty payment
- Verification of duty payment by Central Excise Range Superintendent

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Renaissance RTW Asia (P) Ltd. filing rebate claims for duty paid on exported Knitted Garments. The claims were rejected due to discrepancies, including underpayment of duty and failure to submit triplicate copies of ARE-1 forms. The applicant contended that they cleared goods for export under different schemes and had paid duty at a lower rate. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to revision applications before the Central Government.

The Government noted that the applicant paid duty at 4% instead of the required 8% on exported goods. The applicant's argument for treating part clearances under a different scheme was rejected as they had opted for duty payment under a specific rebate claim scheme. The failure to submit triplicate copies of ARE-1 forms for duty verification was highlighted as a crucial issue by the adjudicating authority.

The Government emphasized the importance of proving the duty-paid nature of exported goods for rebate claims. The lower authorities rightly held that the duty payment could not be confirmed in this case due to discrepancies in documentation and payment verification. Consequently, the rebate claims were deemed inadmissible under the relevant Central Excise Rules and Notification. The Government upheld the decision to reject the rebate claims, finding no merit in the revision applications.

Ultimately, the revision applications were rejected by the Government, affirming the lower authorities' decisions.