2014 (2) TMI 104 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rejection of rebate claim - Difference in description given in the Central Excise Invoice, ARE-1s and their export documents - Held that - Applicant has exported the goods vide ARE-I on payment of duty and filed claim for rebate of duty. There is no dispute to the factual position of exports herein. The department as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the impugned claim on the grounds that the name and address of the consignee and country of destination do not tally with the name and destination as shown in ARE-1s. The order was further confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who also observed that the description of goods show in Central Excise Invoice was different than those shown on ARE-1. Although, the applicant has submitted in their grounds of appeal, that both the description are for the same goods and further submitted that they had indeed mentioned the name of buyer and final destination in Customs invoice which is co-related with the impugned Shipping Bills, there are no findings on these points of the applicant by either of the above authorities. in the commercial invoice and packing list the consignee name is mentioned as Zambezi Shipping Agency LLC Dubai United Emirates and buyer name Is also mentioned as, M/s. Zainab Bottlers Ltd Zanzibar Tanzania which appeared in the Central Excise Invoices/ARE-1s. The endorsement of Customs authorities in part B of ARE-1 to the effect that goods have been exported/shipped on Board is not disputed by the department. So the goods mentioned in ARE-1 stand exported - export of duty paid goods outside India. The commercial invoice also contain the name of buyer in Tanzania. Applicant has received the foreign remittances also and produced BRC. As such, the rebate claims cannot be denied to the applicant under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 rejected due to discrepancies in export documents.

Analysis:
The Revision Applications were filed against orders-in-appeal by M/s. Shreyas Packaging, Surat regarding their rebate claims for excisable goods cleared for export. The adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claim citing discrepancies in the description provided in the Central Excise Invoice, ARE-1s, and export documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the filing of revision applications before the Central Government.

The grounds for the revision applications included arguments related to consignee details, buyer instructions for freight benefits, past export procedures, and the relevance of discrepancies in the name of the consignee. The applicant emphasized that the discrepancies did not impact the rebate claim and cited a previous case to support their position.

During the personal hearing, the Assistant Commissioner reiterated the applicant's grounds, while the respondent department highlighted the discrepancies in the export documents. The Government carefully reviewed the case records, submissions, and previous orders to make a decision.

The Government observed that there was no dispute regarding the export of duty-paid goods, and the rejection was primarily based on discrepancies in consignee details and descriptions. However, the Government noted that the consignee details were consistent with the commercial invoice and packing list, and the export of goods was confirmed by Customs authorities.

The Government referred to previous orders condoning procedural lapses for actual exports and emphasized that the core requirement for rebate is the manufacture and export of goods. As long as this requirement is met, procedural deviations can be overlooked. Based on these considerations, the Government set aside the impugned orders and allowed the revision applications.

In conclusion, the Government rejected the revision applications in favor of the applicant, emphasizing the importance of substantive export requirements over procedural discrepancies.