2014 (12) TMI 818 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 - Held that - Rebate sanctioning authority shall not reject the rebate claim on the ground of non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms if it is otherwise satisfied that conditions for grant of rebate have been fulfilled. Government, therefore, applying the ratio of above said judgement of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in 2013 (5) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , is of the view that the proof of export may be examined on the basis of collateral evidences where original and duplicate ARE-1 form is not submitted. In the light of above, Government proceeds to examine the aspect of proof of export on the basis of collateral evidences available on records or submitted by the applicants. There is cross reference of impugned ARE-1 No.59/07-08 dated 8th May 2007 in impugned shipping bill No.5235228 dated 8.5.2007 and vice-versa. Further, the quantity/weight, description of AREs-1 tallies with quantity/weight and description mentioned in the export invoice/shipping bill. There is endorsement on ARE-1 of custom officer to the effect that the goods covered vide impugned shipping bill have actually been exported On the basis of collateral evidences, the correlation stands established between export documents and excise documents and hence, export of duty paid goods may be treated as completed. Hence, the applicants are eligible for rebate claims in this case. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claim due to non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed by M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd., a manufacturer exporter, challenging the rejection of their rebate claim of duty paid on exported goods. The claim was rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the grounds of non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms. The applicant contended that they had submitted a copy of the ARE-1 form and argued that the authorities should have verified the correctness of the document before rejecting the claim. The applicant also cited a previous judgment in a similar case to support their argument.

The Central Government carefully reviewed the case records, submissions, and the previous orders. They noted that the rebate claim was rejected solely due to the non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms. Referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the Government highlighted that the rebate sanctioning authority should not reject a claim solely based on the non-submission of these forms if other conditions for the rebate are fulfilled. Therefore, the Government decided to examine the proof of export based on collateral evidences available in the records or submitted by the applicant.

Upon reviewing the documents submitted by the applicant, the Government found a correlation between the impugned ARE-1 form and the shipping bill, with endorsements from custom officers confirming the export of goods. The quantity, weight, and description in the export documents matched those in the excise documents, establishing that the duty paid goods were indeed exported. Consequently, the Government concluded that the applicants were eligible for the rebate claims and set aside the impugned order in appeal, allowing the revision application.

In conclusion, the revision application succeeded, and the Central Government ordered in favor of the applicant, granting them the rebate claims based on the collateral evidences provided and the established correlation between the export and excise documents.