2010 (9) TMI 884 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Revision application - rebate claim Held that - respondent has been able to establish that by virtue of Xerox copies of the original/duplicate ARE-1, BRC, Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading, triplicate copy of ARE-1, that duty paid goods have actually been exported. The adjudicating authority and appellate authority has allowed the rebate claim only after satisfying themselves that duty paid goods cleared under relevant ARE-1s have actually been exported. So Government observes that the respondent was also rightly allowed the rebate claim, Revision application is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Verification of correctness of input-output ratio for rebate claims under Central Excise Rules.
2. Sanctioning rebate claim on the strength of an undertaking from the exporter without original documents.

Issue 1 - Verification of correctness of input-output ratio:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the department's appeal against the order-in-original, stating that the declaration of input-output ratio was submitted by the assessee before export, fulfilling the conditions of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. The Commissioner opined that the JAC's verification of conditions before sanctioning the claim was sufficient, and recording every finding in the order was not necessary. The applicant argued that the verification of input-output ratio was a condition under the Notification, citing the case of C.C.E. v. TISCO. The Government observed that the respondent had submitted the ratio before export, and the rebate claims were sanctioned after satisfaction of actual input utilization, finding no issue with the orders.

Issue 2 - Sanctioning rebate claim on the strength of an undertaking:
The department objected to sanctioning a rebate claim based on an exporter's undertaking supported by an FIR, citing procedural requirements. The respondent argued that they had informed the authorities about the misplaced original documents and provided alternative evidence of export. They relied on judgments like C.C.E. v. TISCO and Krishna Filament Limited to support their claim. The Government noted that the authorities had verified the export through alternative copies of documents and found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, upholding the rebate claim sanction.

In conclusion, the Revision Application was rejected, and the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were upheld by the Government after considering the arguments and submissions from both parties.