2014 (2) TMI 775 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of rebate claim - original and duplicate copy of ARE1 for the goods exported not submitted - original and duplicate copy of ARE1 lost in transit - photo copies of the requisite original and duplicate ARE1 of the goods submitted - Held that - there are other decisions of the Government of India on identical fact situation, where the rebate claim has been disallowed. Nevertheless there must be an attempt to reconcile the differing views. Non consideration of the decision which appear to cover the petitioner s case does indicate a flaw in the decision making process warranting interfere in our writ jurisdiction - we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7 September 2012 passed by the Government of India in revision under Section 35EE of the Act and restore the issue to the file of Government of India in revision for fresh disposal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding rejection of rebate claim due to missing original and duplicate copies of ARE1.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner exported goods but faced rejection of rebate claim for not submitting original and duplicate copies of ARE1.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that collateral documents can establish proof of export.
3. The Commissioner of Central Excise filed a Revision application, leading to the Government of India restoring the rejection of the rebate claim.
4. The Government held that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 doesn't allow collateral evidence for export proof without original and duplicate ARE1.
5. The petitioner argued against the hyper-technical approach of not accepting collateral evidence and cited a similar case where collateral evidence was allowed.
6. The revenue contended that allowing rebate without original ARE1 could lead to fraud, citing previous rejections of rebate claims.
7. The High Court noted that the goods were exported, and the petitioner provided self-attested copies of shipping bill, bill of lading, and mate receipts.
8. The Court highlighted a previous case where the Government allowed rebate based on collateral evidence, questioning the inconsistency in decisions.
9. Considering the differing views, the Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the issue for fresh disposal, emphasizing the need to reconcile conflicting decisions.

This detailed analysis covers the legal issues, arguments presented, and the court's decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.