2011 (5) TMI 784 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Revision application - rebate claims against duty paid on sliding Blister tray used for packing of the Glass Beads exported by the Respondent - Assistant Commissioner rejected the rebate claim on the grounds that the goods were exported under ARE-1 whereas it should have been exported under ARE-2 application which was in contravention of the conditions prescribed in the notification Held that - only lapse of exporting goods under ARE-1 in place of ARE-2 forms remaining a procedural & technical lapse which is condonable. There are catena of courts judgment that notification benefit cannot be denied only on procedural lapses once the substantial condition of the that notification has been fulfilled, rebate claim is admissible, revision application rejected

Summary

Issues:
- Rebate claim rejection based on export form used
- Commissioner (Appeals) decision
- Grounds for revision application
- Compliance with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.)
- Procedural and technical lapse in export form usage
- Admissibility of rebate claim

Rebate Claim Rejection Based on Export Form Used:
The Respondents, engaged in manufacturing glass beads, filed rebate claims for duty paid on sliding Blister trays used for packing the exported goods. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the rebate claim, citing the goods were exported under ARE-1 instead of ARE-2, contravening notification conditions.

Commissioner (Appeals) Decision:
The Respondent appealed the Order-in-Original, and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to the revision application by the Central Excise Commissioner. The revision application contended that the export goods were exempt from duty, and the rebate claimed was on inputs used in manufacturing, not on the exported goods.

Grounds for Revision Application:
The revision application argued that the export goods were exempt from duty, and the use of ARE-1 instead of ARE-2 for claiming rebate on duty paid on inputs was a procedural error. The application emphasized the necessity of ARE-2 for claiming duty on inputs used in manufacturing export goods.

Compliance with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.):
The application highlighted that the relevant notification prescribed procedures without granting duty exemption. It asserted that the case laws cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) were not applicable as they dealt with exemption notifications, unlike the present case.

Procedural and Technical Lapse in Export Form Usage:
The Government noted that the Respondents had complied with the procedure under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and had informed the Assistant Commissioner about input purchase and consumption ratios. The Government considered the use of ARE-1 instead of ARE-2 as a procedural and technical lapse, condonable due to substantial compliance with the notification requirements.

Admissibility of Rebate Claim:
The Government, after reviewing the case records, found no dispute regarding the export of goods and their duty paid status. It emphasized that the substantial compliance with the notification procedure warranted the admissibility of the rebate claim. Citing court judgments, the Government upheld the Appellate Commissioner's decision, concluding that the rebate claim was admissible.

In conclusion, the revision application was rejected for lacking merit, and the decision of the Appellate Commissioner was upheld by the Government.