2011 (5) TMI 712 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Revision application - rebate sanctioning authority - rebate claims under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over factory of production of export goods or the warehouse, or the Maritime Commissioner is empowered to sanction the rebate claim - rebate claims are filed with Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction of warehouse, from where goods are cleared for export, who is empowered to sanction rebate claim - Government sets aside the impugned orders-in-appeal and restores the impugned orders-in-original - decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (ACCE) to sanction rebate claims.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for filing rebate claims.
3. Impact of procedural lapses on substantive benefits.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (ACCE) to Sanction Rebate Claims:

The core issue revolves around whether the ACCE, Division-I, Ahmedabad-II, had the jurisdiction to sanction the rebate claims filed by the applicant. The applicant contended that the rebate claims were filed with the ACCE, Division-I, Ahmedabad-II, after making due inquiries and receiving no objections. The ACCE sanctioned the claims, but the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II, later reviewed and appealed the orders, arguing that only the ACCE with jurisdiction over the factory of production or the Maritime Commissioner could sanction such claims. The Government observed that the ACCE, Division-I, Ahmedabad-II, should have either advised the applicant or returned the rebate claim papers to be filed with the appropriate ACCE. Since the ACCE, Division-I, accepted and sanctioned the claims, the applicant could not be penalized for the lapse on the part of the departmental authorities.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Filing Rebate Claims:

The applicant argued that the rebate claims were submitted after confirming with the ACCE, Division-I, Ahmedabad-II, and were accepted without objection. The Government noted that the fundamental requirement of export of duty-paid goods was satisfied, and the procedural conditions specified in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, were complied with. The Government emphasized that procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits, especially when the fundamental conditions of duty payment and export were met.

3. Impact of Procedural Lapses on Substantive Benefits:

The applicant cited several judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, to argue that substantive benefits should not be denied due to procedural lapses. The Government agreed, noting that the procedural infraction of notifications or circulars should be condoned if the exports had genuinely taken place. The Government highlighted that the core aspect of the rebate is the manufacture and subsequent export of goods, and as long as this requirement is met, other procedural deviations can be condoned. The Government set aside the impugned orders-in-appeal and restored the impugned orders-in-original, allowing the revision application in favor of the applicant.

Conclusion:

The judgment concluded that the ACCE, Division-I, Ahmedabad-II, had the jurisdiction to sanction the rebate claims, and the procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits. The Government set aside the impugned orders-in-appeal and restored the original orders, allowing the revision application filed by the applicant. The decision emphasized the importance of not penalizing applicants for procedural lapses when the fundamental requirements of duty payment and export were met.

← Previous Next →