2012 (5) TMI 379 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Revision application - Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the rebate claim merely because duty paying documents were not produced before him Held that - in case goods are cleared for export from a place other than factory or warehouse then the goods will be cleared for export under Central Excise supervision and the triplicate copy of ARE-1 will be verified for payment of duty by the Central Excise Range Supdt. in-charge of factory where goods are manufacture. No such procedure is followed in this case, duty paid character of exported goods is not proved in this case, the rebate of duty is not admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, revision application is rejected

Issues:
1. Rebate claim rejection for exported goods procured from different suppliers.
2. Compliance with provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules.
3. Correlation between duty paid goods and their export for rebate claim.
4. Requirement of duty paying documents for rebate claim.
5. Violation of conditions for export under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.).
6. Procedure for clearance of goods for export from a place other than the factory.
7. Admissibility of rebate claim for goods purchased from the market.
8. Compliance with Circular No. 16/2009-Cus for rebate claim.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a merchant-exporter filing a rebate claim for goods exported, which was partially rejected due to goods procured from different suppliers. The rejection was based on the lack of compliance with prescribed documents and original packing requirements for export.

2. The applicant contended that all conditions under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) were fulfilled, emphasizing compliance with Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules. The rejection of the rebate claim was challenged on the grounds of legal provisions not being contravened.

3. The correlation between duty paid goods and their export was a crucial aspect for the rebate claim. Reports and verifications by excise authorities were presented to support the correlation, highlighting the importance of establishing the duty paid character of the exported goods for admissibility of the rebate claim.

4. The issue of duty paying documents surfaced, with the applicant arguing that the duty paid character was verified by authorities, and the lack of physical production of documents should not invalidate the rebate claim. The contention was supported by the general permission granted by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.

5. Government's observation revealed a violation of conditions under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) due to goods not being cleared for export from the factory of manufacture. The absence of proper procedures for export clearance from a place other than the factory led to the rejection of the rebate claim.

6. The procedure for clearance of goods for export from a location other than the factory was not followed, leading to non-compliance with Central Excise Rules. The lack of identification on exported goods and adherence to Circular No. 16/2009-Cus further supported the rejection of the rebate claim.

7. The argument for treating all market-purchased goods as duty paid was refuted, emphasizing the necessity of complying with specific rules and notifications for rebate claims on exported goods. The duty paid character of goods was deemed essential for the admissibility of the rebate claim.

8. Ultimately, the revision application was dismissed for lacking merit, with the government upholding the rejection of the rebate claim based on non-compliance with legal provisions and conditions for export clearance and rebate claims.

← Previous Next →