2014 (12) TMI 77 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B - failure to submit duplicate copy of ARE-1 from the authorized officer of the SEZ evidencing the re-warehousing/receipt of goods in the SEZ - Held that - As per procedure, the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 duly completed in all respects is presented to the Customs along with goods at the port of export. The Customs Officer after being satisfied about the fact that export of said goods is in accordance with law, he certifies in Part- C of both the duplicate and original copy of ARE-1 that goods are exported said shipping bill No. After the said customs certification, customs will hand over original copy to the exporter and send the duplicate copy either by post or handover to exporter in a sealed cover for submission before rebate sanctioning authority. In this case the duplicate copy has not reached the rebate sanctioning authority. But the original copies of ARE-1 is submitted. The same customs certification confirming the export of goods is available on original ARE-1. The non-submission of duplicate copy of ARE-1 being a procedural lapse cannot be a ground for denying the substantial benefit of rebate claim. However, the original authority could have made correspondence with the SEZ Customs authority to either ascertain genuineness of ARE-1 certified copy or get confirmation about receipt of said goods in SEZ. The substantial benefit of rebate claim cannot be denied for minor procedural infractions. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 due to non-submission of duplicate copy of ARE-1 from SEZ authorized officer.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Wipro Ltd. filing 7 rebate claims totaling &8377; 5,34,173 for goods cleared to SEZ on payment of Central Excise Duty. The department issued a show cause notice questioning the rebate claims due to the non-submission of duplicate copies of ARE-1 as required under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The Deputy Commissioner rejected all rebate claims citing non-receipt of said duplicates. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the revision application by the applicant before the Central Government.

The revision application raised several grounds, including the department's acceptance in a previous order that submitting duplicate ARE-1 copies was not the assessee's responsibility, the acknowledgment of goods' export by the department, and the alleged non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority in rejecting the claims. The applicant argued that procedural deficiencies should not override substantive rights, citing precedents where substantial benefits were not denied due to technical lapses.

The Central Government, after reviewing the case records, noted that while the duplicate ARE-1 copy was not submitted, the original copies with customs certification confirming export were provided. The Government emphasized that denying rebate claims solely on procedural lapses was unjust, suggesting that the original authority could have verified the export genuineness with SEZ Customs. Consequently, the Government set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that minor procedural infractions should not bar substantial benefits.

In conclusion, the Central Government disposed of the revision application by remanding the case for reevaluation, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved.