2012 (10) TMI 687 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rejection of Rebate claim on the ground of non-filing of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 Held that - Rebate claim is not admissible if the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 is not submitted alongwith rebate claim - first two rebate claims involving ARE-1 No. 16/21-9-08 and 25/21-12-08 the original/duplicate ARE-1 were submitted by applicant and the same is not disputed by department. Therefore, the rebate claim pertaining to these ARE-1, may be sanctioned if found in order in accordance with law. Rejection of Rebate claim on the ground claim in time barred - relevant date for the purpose of calculating the stipulated period of one year for making application of rebate claim Held that - Time limitation period of one year stipulated under Section 11B(l) is to be computed from the relevant date on which the ship carrying load of impugned export goods left India - applicant is claiming that ship carrying said export goods left India on 8-6-08 and the rebate claim initially filed on 21-8-08 was resubmitted on 3-6-09 alongwith copy of Shipping Bill. As such, applicant claimed that the rebate claim is not time barred - claim of applicant is required to be verified from the relevant documents. If the relevant date, on verification is confirmed as 8-6-08, the rebate claim will be sanctioned to the applicant in accordance with law - original authority directed to conduct necessary verification

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of rebate claims due to non-filing of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms.
2. Determination of the "relevant date" for calculating the limitation period for filing rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Procedural lapses and their impact on the admissibility of rebate claims.
4. Rejection of rebate claims on the basis of being time-barred.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Rebate Claims Due to Non-Filing of Original and Duplicate Copies of ARE-1 Forms:
The applicant contested that the non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms should not lead to the rejection of rebate claims as it is a procedural requirement. They argued that the actual export of goods was proved beyond doubt through other export documents and Xerox copies of the ARE-1s. However, the Government emphasized that the submission of ARE-1 forms is a statutory requirement under Notification No. 19/04-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-04 and the CBEC Manual of Supplementary Instructions. The Government held that non-submission of these forms cannot be treated as a minor procedural lapse and rebate claims cannot be sanctioned without them. The decision was supported by previous orders and the Supreme Court's ruling in J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, which upheld the necessity of original documents for secondary evidence.

2. Determination of the "Relevant Date" for Calculating the Limitation Period:
The applicant argued that the relevant date for calculating the limitation period should be the date on which the ship carrying the goods leaves India. They cited Section 11B(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which defines the "relevant date" as the date on which the ship or aircraft in which the goods are loaded leaves India. The Government noted that the exact dates of the ships leaving Indian ports were not clear and needed to be re-confirmed from the respective EGMs and Shipping Bills. The Government directed the original authority to verify these dates and, if confirmed, to sanction the rebate claims accordingly.

3. Procedural Lapses and Their Impact on the Admissibility of Rebate Claims:
The applicant claimed that procedural lapses, such as the delay in filing rebate claims due to the customs department's delay in printing shipping bills, should not deny them the substantive benefit of rebate. They cited various judgments supporting the view that procedural lapses should not defeat the purpose of export-oriented schemes. The Government, however, held that the requirement of submitting original and duplicate ARE-1 forms is a statutory condition and not merely a procedural formality. The Government emphasized that leniency in this requirement could lead to potential fraud and double benefits, which is against the policy of the Government.

4. Rejection of Rebate Claims on the Basis of Being Time-Barred:
The applicant argued that their rebate claims were filed within the stipulated period of one year from the relevant date, considering the date of export as the date the ship left India. They provided specific dates and claimed that their submissions were within the time limit. The Government noted that the rebate claim of Rs. 32,28,131/- was initially filed on 21-8-08 but was returned due to non-submission of relevant shipping bills. The applicant resubmitted the claim on 3-6-09, and if the relevant date is confirmed as 8-6-08, the claim would not be time-barred. The Government directed the original authority to verify the relevant dates and decide the rebate claims accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Government modified the impugned orders and directed the original authority to conduct necessary verifications regarding the relevant dates and the submission of original and duplicate ARE-1 forms. The rebate claims should be decided based on these verifications and in accordance with the law. All three revision applications were disposed of in these terms.

← Previous Next →