2015 (12) TMI 1640 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - rejection on account of non-production of proper proof of export - Held that - the export of duty paid excisable goods cleared from factory cannot be established and the lower authorities have rightly concluded that export of duty paid goods is not established in this case - rebate claim is not admissible to the applicant u/r 18 of CER, 2002 read with N/N. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - revision application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claim for non-production of proof of export, Dispute over procedural lapses in documentation, Violation of conditions for export of duty paid goods, Admissibility of rebate claim under Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. Rejection of rebate claim: The case involves a rebate claim filed by M/s. KEC International Ltd. for excisable goods under Chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985. The claim was partially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner due to non-production of proper proof of export, leading to a dispute over the rejection of part of the claimed amount. The applicant contended that the rejection was based on procedural lapses and should be condoned.

2. Dispute over procedural lapses: The applicant argued that the rejection of the rebate claim was unjustified as the authorities failed to consider the documents provided. The Assistant Commissioner cited non-endorsement of Customs on the ARE-1 copies and non-production of bill of lading as reasons for rejection. However, the applicant claimed that the necessary documents were available with the refund claim application, highlighting a typographical error as the main reason for rejection.

3. Violation of conditions for export: The Government observed that the goods were not exported directly from the factory of manufacture as required by the relevant notification. The circular specified procedures for export, including verification by Central Excise Officers, which were not followed in this case. The absence of proper endorsements and non-compliance with export conditions led to the conclusion that export of duty paid goods was not established.

4. Admissibility of rebate claim under Central Excise Rules: The Government upheld the rejection of the rebate claim, emphasizing that the substantial conditions for export of duty paid goods were not met. The failure to establish export of goods cleared from the factory resulted in the inadmissibility of the rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the relevant notification.

In conclusion, the revision application by M/s. KEC International Ltd. was rejected by the Government as it lacked merit. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was upheld, affirming the decision to reject part of the rebate claim due to non-compliance with export procedures and documentation requirements. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural and substantive conditions for claiming rebates under Central Excise Rules.