2013 (3) TMI 729 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the rejection of a refund claim u/s Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.).

Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellant cleared an excisable product for export under ARE-1 procedure without payment of duty. The Customs Officer certified the export on 14-12-2008, but the ARE-1 was received on 12-6-2009. The appellant claimed refund on 30-7-2009. The department sanctioned refund as CENVAT credit, but the appellate authority allowed the department's appeal. The appellant's appeal challenges the appellate Commissioner's order.

Appellant's Submission:
The appellant's counsel argued that the export consignment was shipped promptly upon receiving the LEO. The ARE-1 was delayed and received on 12-6-2009. Copies of shipping documents were submitted to the Central Excise Range officer on 28-4-2009. The appellant provided the ARE-1 certified by Customs as instructed by the Range Officer. The counsel contended that the appellant should not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.).

Department's Argument:
The Superintendent (AR) referred to Condition (ii) of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and stated that the evidence of export was produced beyond the prescribed six-month period. Therefore, the party could not claim a refund of the duty paid.

Judgment:
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the refund cannot be denied to the appellant. The goods were exported on 14-12-2008 as certified by the Customs Officer. The appellant submitted the required documents within six months, as instructed by the Range Officer. The Tribunal noted that there was no prescribed time limit for producing the ARE-1 and that the appellant complied with the instructions. It was concluded that the appellant did not violate the conditions of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.). The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.