2012 (9) TMI 531 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claims - goods were exported - Alleged that Applicant is the supplier of the grey fabrics and has endorsed a fraudulent invoice - applicant is also an exporter who has claimed rebate of such duty reflected on the fraudulent invoices endorsed by him but routed through the processor - Applicant had been pleading that goods are exported and duty was paid and he made the payment to the suppliers of grey fabrics Held that - Unless and until duty paid character of exported goods is proved the rebate cannot granted - Once the supplier is proved non existent it has to be held that goods have not been received. However the applicant s claim that they have received goods but how they have received goods from a non-existent supplier is not known - duty paid character of exported goods was not proved which is a fundamental requirement for claiming rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 rebate claim rejected

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of rebate claims due to fraudulent invoices.
2. Responsibility for verifying the authenticity of suppliers.
3. Applicability of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 703/19/2003-CX.
4. Allegations of contradictory findings in the adjudication order.
5. Legal implications of transactions involving non-existent suppliers.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Rebate Claims Due to Fraudulent Invoices
The applicant, a merchant exporter, filed rebate claims totaling Rs. 9,28,865 for duty paid on exported goods. These claims were rejected on the grounds that the duty on exported goods was paid using Cenvat credit from invoices issued by fictitious firms. The investigations revealed that the suppliers of grey fabrics were non-existent, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were fraudulent.

Issue 2: Responsibility for Verifying the Authenticity of Suppliers
The applicant argued that the department cannot deny its responsibility to supply copies of alert circulars. The department had issued alert circulars declaring about 500 units as fictitious. Despite the applicant's claims, the adjudicating authority held that the exporter cannot escape responsibility under the rules by claiming ignorance of the bogus transactions. The applicant failed to provide any evidence or affidavits to prove the existence of the suppliers.

Issue 3: Applicability of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 703/19/2003-CX
The applicant relied on the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 703/19/2003-CX, which states that manufacturers should take credit based on duty-paying documents without the need for physical verification of premises, goods, or records. However, the government noted that this reliance was misplaced as the investigations conclusively proved the fraudulent nature of the transactions.

Issue 4: Allegations of Contradictory Findings in the Adjudication Order
The applicant contended that the adjudication order contained contradictory findings, which should be set aside. They argued that the department's stance was contradictory because it accused the applicant of endorsing fraudulent invoices while also claiming rebates on those invoices. However, the government found this argument unconvincing, as the investigations had clearly established the fraudulent nature of the transactions.

Issue 5: Legal Implications of Transactions Involving Non-Existent Suppliers
The applicant argued that they procured processed fabrics from the manufacturer and that any wrongly availed credit should be recovered from the manufacturer or supplier of grey fabrics. The government, however, noted that since the suppliers were non-existent, the transactions were fraudulent. The applicant's claim that they had made payments to the suppliers did not prove the duty-paid character of the exported goods. The Supreme Court judgment in Omkar Overseas Ltd. and the CESTAT judgment in Sheela Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. were cited to support the rejection of rebate claims in cases of fraud.

Conclusion:
The government upheld the rejection of the rebate claims, finding no infirmity in the orders-in-appeal. The duty-paid character of the exported goods was not proven, a fundamental requirement for claiming a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. All revision applications were rejected as devoid of merit.

← Previous Next →