2012 (9) TMI 306 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim rejection of claim for non-endorsement of the name of the merchant exporter in the CT-I Certificate, non-execution of bond on behalf of merchant exporter Held that - ARE-1 contains the names of manufacturer as well as merchant exporter and the Central Excise Invoice No., Mark & No. of the packages of goods - no dispute about the actual export of the goods - procedural infractions of notifications/circulars should be condoned if exports have really taken place and the law is settled that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses - original authority is directed to accept the proof of export by ignoring the said procedural lapses rebate claim allowed

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Central Excise Duty benefit on exported goods due to procedural lapses in documentation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Denial of Benefit:
The case involves M/s. Shrenik Pharma Ltd. contesting the denial of Central Excise Duty benefit on exported goods. The denial was based on the discrepancy that the goods were cleared under Central Excise Invoices and ARE-1s showing the name of a different exporter, not the bond holder, leading to a demand for duty payment.

2. Contentions and Legal Interpretations:
The applicant argued that the goods were cleared under CT-Is given by the manufacturer on behalf of the Merchant Exporter, in line with C.B.E. & C. Manual instructions. They contended that the denial of benefits under specific paragraphs of the Manual was unjustified. The applicant highlighted the compliance with all rules and conditions for export.

3. Appeal and Revision Application:
The applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the lower authority's order, citing non-consideration of their response to the show cause notice and lack of reasons for denial of benefits. The appeal was rejected, leading to the revision application based on erroneous findings and conclusions by the lower authority.

4. Government's Observations and Decision:
After considering oral and written submissions, the Government observed that the procedural lapses, such as non-endorsement of the merchant exporter's name in the CT-I Certificate, were minor and did not negate the actual export of goods. The Government emphasized the importance of substantive benefit over procedural infractions, citing relevant case laws.

5. Decision and Disposal of Revision Application:
In light of the circumstances and legal principles, the Government set aside the lower authorities' orders and allowed the revision application. The original authority was directed to accept the proof of export, disregarding the procedural lapses, ultimately disposing of the revision application in favor of the applicant.

6. Conclusion:
The judgment highlights the significance of substantive compliance over minor procedural lapses in cases of actual export of goods. It underscores the need to interpret beneficial provisions liberally to ensure that legitimate benefits are not denied due to technicalities, ultimately upholding the applicant's claim for Central Excise Duty benefit on exported goods.