2013 (9) TMI 906 - HC - Central Excise

Claim of Rebate of Duty under Rule 18 - Export of goods - proof of export - Held that - The production of original and the duplicate copy of ARE-1 Form duly endorsed by the Officer of the Customs is prima-facie proof of the fact that the goods have been exported - Even if the documents are produced, the adjudicating authority can still come to the conclusion that the goods were not exported - On the other hand, if the documents such as original or the duplicate copy of ARE-1 Form is not produced, the adjudicating authority can still come to the conclusion that the goods were in fact exported - The Central Excise Officer has to record a satisfaction that the claim is in order - It is question of fact as to whether the claim is genuine or not - Such satisfaction can be recorded even in the absence of original/duplicate copy of ARE-1 Form - The express language of the notification is the recording of the satisfaction of the Central Excise Officer that the claim is in order so as to sanction the rebate either in whole or in part. Such exercise has not been undertaken by the Adjudicating Officer or any of the authorities under the Act, therefore the orders passed was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to record a satisfaction to the effect whether the claim of the petitioner for rebate is in order or not Decided in favour of Petitoner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders declining rebate of duty paid on exported goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 due to non-production of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 Form.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of knitted fabrics exporting handloom products after paying duty on raw materials, challenged the denial of rebate on exported goods under Rule 18. The Central Government, through notifications, specified the procedure for claiming rebate, including the requirement of presenting original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 Form. The petitioner's claim was rejected for not attaching these forms, despite submitting other relevant documents like shipping bills, bill of lading, and bank realization certificates. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the rejection, a decision affirmed in appeal and revision by the Central Government.

The petitioner argued that the requirement of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 Form is procedural and does not negate the substantive right to rebate, especially when evidence of exportation exists through other documents. The Court noted that the production of ARE-1 forms endorsed by Customs Officer is prima facie proof of exportation, but the absence of these forms does not automatically disprove exportation. The Central Excise Officer must be satisfied that the claim is genuine to sanction rebate, a determination that can be made even without the forms. As this determination was not made in the present case, the Court set aside previous orders and remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to assess the claim's validity.

In conclusion, the Court emphasized the importance of examining the evidence of exportation to determine the eligibility for rebate, highlighting that the absence of specific forms does not preclude the possibility of exportation. The decision reaffirmed the need for the Central Excise Officer to assess the claim's validity based on the available evidence before sanctioning the rebate, underscoring the procedural nature of form requirements in the rebate process.