2013 (7) TMI 73 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim under rule 18 - Procedural lapses of non-filing of original copy of ARE-1 - Assessee has not submitted original copy of ARE-1 and submitted the two triplicate copies (pink copies) along with the rebate claims. - Held that - The submission of application for removal of export goods in ARE-1 form is must because such leniencies would lead to possible fraud of claiming an alternatively available benefit which may amount to additional/double benefit. This has never been the policy of the Government to allow unintended benefit. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Sharif-ud-Din. Abdul Gani 1979 (11) TMI 225 - SUPREME COURT has observed that distinction between required forms and other declarations of compulsory nature and/or simple technical nature is to be judiciously done. When non-compliance of said requirement leads to any specific/odd consequences then it would be difficult to hold that requirement as non-mandatory. As such there is no force in the plea of the applicant that this lapse should be considered on a procedural lapse of technical nature. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Yashoda v. Shobha Rani 2007 (4) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has discussed Sections 63, 64 & 65 of Evidence Act, 1872 and therein upheld the High Court view that the photocopies cannot be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of the Act and they ought not to have been received since the documents in question were admittedly photocopies, there was no possibility of the documents being compared with the originals. Government, therefore holds that non-submission of statutory documents i.e. ARE-1 original and duplicate copy duly endorsed by customs and not following the basic procedure of export goods as discussed above, cannot be treated as just a minor/technical procedural lapse for the purpose of granting rebate of duty - Rebate claim is not admissible if the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 is not submitted along with rebate claim. - Decided in favour of the Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Submission of original ARE-1 Form for rebate claims.
2. Procedural compliance for rebate claims under Central Excise Rules.
3. Admissibility of rebate claims without original ARE-1 Form.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Submission of original ARE-1 Form for rebate claims

The core issue revolves around the submission of the original ARE-1 Form, which is a mandatory document for processing rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant department contended that the rebate claim cannot be allowed in the absence of the original ARE-1 Form duly certified by Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) treated the non-submission of the original ARE-1 as a procedural lapse and upheld the order-in-original, which sanctioned the rebate claims. The relevant provisions of Notification C.B.E. & C. Instruction, specifically Paras 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 of part I of Chapter 8 of the C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, were cited to emphasize the necessity of submitting the original ARE-1 Form.

Issue 2: Procedural compliance for rebate claims under Central Excise Rules

The judgment meticulously outlines the procedural requirements for filing a rebate claim. According to Para 3(b) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, the original copy of the ARE-1 Form must be submitted along with the rebate claim to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The Assistant Commissioner is required to compare the original ARE-1 Form with the duplicate and triplicate copies received from Customs and the Central Excise Officer, respectively, to ensure the claim's correctness. The absence of the original ARE-1 Form prevents the rebate sanctioning authority from verifying the authenticity of the export, thereby making it impossible to sanction the rebate claim.

Issue 3: Admissibility of rebate claims without original ARE-1 Form

The Government held that the submission of the original and duplicate ARE-1 Forms, duly endorsed by Customs, is an essential requirement for establishing the export of duty-paid goods. This requirement is fundamental for sanctioning rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment cites previous Government Orders and Supreme Court rulings to reinforce that non-compliance with this statutory condition cannot be treated as a minor procedural lapse. The judgment concludes that the rebate claim of Rs. 43,260/- in respect of ARE-1 No. 09/08-09 is not admissible due to the non-submission of the original ARE-1 Form. However, the rebate claim of Rs. 99,209/- in respect of ARE-1 No. 332/08-09 is upheld as the department did not raise any objections regarding this claim.

Conclusion:

The revision application is disposed of with the Government modifying the impugned orders to the extent that the rebate claim of Rs. 43,260/- is not admissible due to the non-submission of the original ARE-1 Form, while the rebate claim of Rs. 99,209/- is upheld. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and statutory conditions for sanctioning rebate claims under the Central Excise Rules.