2013 (6) TMI 814 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of rebate claims due to non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms.
2. Interpretation of procedural requirements under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Summary:

1. Rejection of Rebate Claims Due to Non-Submission of Original and Duplicate Copies of ARE-1 Forms:
The petitioners challenged the impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority, which quashed the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and denied the rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Revisional Authority rejected the claims solely on the ground that the petitioners did not produce the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms along with their rebate applications. The petitioners argued that the original and duplicate copies were lost/stolen, and they had lodged an FIR. They submitted other documents such as mate receipts, bills of lading, and shipping bills to support their claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the rebate claims based on these documents, but the Revisional Authority reversed this decision, emphasizing the mandatory nature of producing original and duplicate ARE-1 forms.

2. Interpretation of Procedural Requirements Under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The court examined whether the production of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms is a mandatory requirement for claiming a rebate under Rule 18. The petitioners contended that the substantial conditions of payment of duty and export of duty-paid goods were satisfied through other documents, and the procedural requirement of submitting original and duplicate ARE-1 forms should not be considered mandatory. The court referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in U.M. Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that procedural requirements are directory and not mandatory. The court concluded that if the exporter can establish through other documents that the goods were exported after payment of duty, the rebate claim should not be rejected solely on the ground of non-submission of original and duplicate ARE-1 forms.

Judgment:
The Gujarat High Court quashed the impugned orders of the Revisional Authority and held that the petitioners are entitled to the rebate of duty claimed for the excisable goods exported on payment of excise duty from their respective factories. The court emphasized that procedural requirements should not override the substantive conditions of proving export and payment of duty. The rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs.