2016 (2) TMI 1038 - AT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - goods supplied to SEZ unit - whether rebate can be allowed in the absence of duplicate copy of ARE-1? - Held that - The appellant failed to furnish the duplicate copes of ARE-1. However, in respect of 10 ARE-1 he has furnished certificate from the officer who is authorized to verify the details and issue such certificate. Para 13.7 of the Supplemental Instructions, 2005 provides for submission of collateral evidence in case of loss of document. In that case, the rebate in respect of these 10 copies of ARE-1 ought to be allowed - The appellant has not furnished any collateral evidence in respect of four ARE-1 and therefore, the rebate claim in respect of these four ARE-1 is liable to be rejected - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duties of excise paid for goods supplied to SEZ unit; Eligibility for rebate in the absence of duplicate copy of ARE-1.

Analysis:
The appellant cleared goods under Notification No. 42/2011-C.E. (N.T.) and submitted LUT, but the LUT was valid only until 30-11-2011. Upon paying duty and interest for a subsequent period, the LUT was validated on 31-1-2012. A rebate claim was filed on 17-5-2012 for &8377; 1,14,705, which was rejected by the Original authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned rebate for three ARE-1 duplicates submitted but rejected the claim for others due to missing duplicates. The issue revolves around whether rebate can be allowed without the duplicate copy of ARE-1. The appellant's counsel cited CBEC's Excise Manual, stating that collateral evidence like remittance certificates can be used in case of lost documents to verify exports.

The appellant argued that goods were received at the SEZ unit, as certified in the ARE-1 by the authorized officer. The duty was paid due to the LUT's invalidity, making the appellant eligible for rebate. The respondent contended that duplicate copies of ARE-1 are crucial for verification and to prevent duplicate claims. The Tribunal noted that while duplicate copies were missing, certificates from the authorized officer were provided for 10 ARE-1s, satisfying the requirement of collateral evidence as per the Excise Manual. As a result, rebate for these 10 ARE-1s was allowed. However, rebate claims for the remaining four ARE-1s without collateral evidence were rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already granted rebate for three ARE-1s with submitted duplicates.

Conclusively, the Tribunal allowed the rebate claim for the 10 ARE-1s supported by certificates from the authorized officer. The impugned order was modified to reflect this decision, partially allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.