2011 (6) TMI 557 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of export benefits - Petitioner exported goods purchased from a firm by the name of High Collection Texpin. - The supplier was found to be fictitious and non-existent - proprietor of the Petitioner admitted that he had purchased the goods through a broker and that he had never met the owner or representative of the supplier. There is a finding of fact that no excise duty had been paid on the exported goods - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner was unable to establish the actual payment of the duty on the exported goods. Petitioner has despite the finding against him been given the benefit of a waiver of the penalty imposed. - Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order rejecting rebate claim under Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay pertains to a challenge made by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The order in question rejected the Petitioner's claim to rebate under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Joint Secretary upheld the findings of fact by both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). The Petitioner, a merchant-exporter, had exported goods purchased from a firm named High Collection Texpin, which was later discovered to be fictitious and non-existent. The Petitioner admitted to purchasing goods through a broker and not having any direct contact with the supplier. It was established that no excise duty had been paid on the exported goods. Despite the Petitioner's arguments regarding receiving a genuine invoice and a certificate from the Range Superintendent, the Court held that the inability to prove the actual payment of duty due to the non-existence of the supplier justified the rejection of the rebate claim. The Court emphasized that interference with findings of fact is not warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although the Petitioner was granted a waiver of the penalty, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the decision and dismissed the Petition, discharging the rule.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence, especially in cases involving financial transactions and duty payments. It underscores the significance of factual findings and the limitations of judicial interference under constitutional provisions. The Court's decision serves as a reminder of the need for diligence and authenticity in commercial dealings to avoid legal repercussions and emphasizes the principle of upholding the integrity of financial regulations and compliance mechanisms.