2011 (1) TMI 828 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - Export goods through merchant exporter - Government notes, that due to tampring/hiding of the value the Crucial export documents, i.e. shipping bill, commercial Invoice and Bill of lading could not be verified as the same could not be co-related with originally declared/assessed value, thereby leading to not only a question as to whether the exactly same goods (cleared from manufacturer vide impugned ARE-1s) have been exported but also non-verification of the same viz-a-viz marketing prices - The tampering, bidding and any defacement of particulars in Commercial invoice, Shipping Bills & Bill of Lading is not permissible in statutory documents which are essential for claiming the monetary benefit - Such statutory documents having defacements, tampering or erasings cannot be treated as valid documents - Thus, Government is of the considered opinion that the impugned rebate claims as such cannot be held as admissible for being deficient and non-maintainable as per the objections/grounds raised by Respondent Commissioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over rebate claims filed by the applicant for exports made through merchant exporters.
- Verification of export documents and crucial particulars like FOB value and Commercial Invoice Value.
- Interpretation of statutory provisions and procedural infractions.
- Compliance with conditions for filing rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
- Admissibility of rebate claims and rejection by the department.
- Examination of tampering/hiding of value in export documents.
- Compliance with statutory forms and required verifications before granting rebates.
- Legal interpretation of the impugned rebate claims and adherence to statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispute over Rebate Claims:
- The revision applications were filed by the applicant against the order-in-appeal related to rebate claims for exports made through merchant exporters. The dispute arose regarding the verification of export documents and crucial particulars like FOB value and Commercial Invoice Value.

2. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions:
- The applicant argued procedural infractions and non-rejection of rebate claims based on statutory provisions. They emphasized compliance with conditions for filing rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

3. Compliance and Admissibility of Rebate Claims:
- The applicant contended that the rebate claims were admissible under Rule 18 and should not be rejected, citing various case laws supporting their position. They highlighted the department's demand for duty on exported goods despite accepted proof of export.

4. Verification of Export Documents:
- The government noted tampering and hiding of value in export documents, leading to non-verification of crucial particulars. Such tampering raised questions about the actual exports and marketing prices, rendering the documents invalid for claiming rebates.

5. Compliance with Statutory Forms:
- The government examined the required verifications before granting rebates as per statutory provisions and found deficiencies in the submitted documents. Any mis-declaration or withholding of required particulars negated the purpose of the rebate claims.

6. Legal Interpretation and Adherence to Statutory Provisions:
- The government upheld the orders-in-appeal, stating that the impugned rebate claims were deficient and non-maintainable as per the objections raised by the Respondent Commissioner. The strict adherence to statutory provisions and CBEC Circulars was emphasized.

7. Conclusion:
- Ultimately, the revision applications were rejected, and the orders-in-appeal were upheld, based on the non-admissibility of the rebate claims due to deficiencies and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The decision was in line with legal interpretations and adherence to strict statutory provisions.

This detailed analysis outlines the various issues, arguments presented by the applicant, government's observations, and the final decision regarding the disputed rebate claims in the legal judgment.