2014 (12) TMI 903 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate claim - non production of complete AR-4 - petitioner has produced not only xerox copies but they are of relevant and germane documents viz. Shipping bills, bill of lading, customs invoices, Mate receipt and bank realization certificate - Held that - When the proof of export is produced and that act is evidenced by production of the documents referred by us viz. Shipping bill, bill of lading etc., then the claim deserves to be entertained / granted. However, in this case, it has been concurrently found that the original and duplicate copies of AR-4, which bear endorsement of Customs Authority have not been submitted. The Authorities found that in some cases AR-4 did not have the Customs endorsement, whereas in some cases only front part of AR-4 was submitted, whereas it is the back portion on which endorsement is put by Customs. The documents pertaining to proof of exports have been categorized. It is not as if any hyper technical view has been taken because each of the Authorities have referred to other documents produced. They have referred to shipping bills, bill of lading, customs invoices, Mate receipts and bank realization certificate. However, those documents have not been relied upon because their first part has not been submitted and it is only the second part which has been placed on record. That may prove export of certain goods, but would not prove further that those were the same goods removed from the manufacturer s factory. In such circumstances, the findings of fact are based on material produced. They cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rejection of claim on hyper technical grounds; Requirement of primary document AR-4 for proof of export; Non-submission of original and duplicate copies of AR-4 with Customs endorsement; Evaluation of submitted documents like shipping bills, bill of lading, customs invoices, Mate receipts, and bank realization certificate; Comparison with a similar case where documents were accepted due to complete submission and necessary endorsement.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the claim rejection was based on hyper technical grounds, arguing that the Government's view on the mandatory production of AR-4 as the primary document for proof of export was not justified. The petitioner submitted relevant documents like shipping bills, bill of lading, customs invoices, Mate receipts, and bank realization certificate, emphasizing that non-production of complete AR-4 should not be fatal.

2. The Court, however, disagreed with the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the significance of original and duplicate copies of AR-4 with Customs endorsement. It was noted that the submitted AR-4 documents lacked Customs endorsement or had only the front part submitted, whereas the endorsement is typically placed on the back portion by Customs. Despite the presence of other documents like shipping bills and invoices, the incomplete submission of AR-4 was deemed crucial to establish the link between exported goods and the manufacturer's factory.

3. The judgment highlighted that the findings of fact were not arbitrary or legally flawed, as they were based on the material produced. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Government's decision in a different case where complete documents were accepted did not apply here due to the lack of necessary endorsements on the submitted copies. The Court emphasized that the absence of endorsements on the documents presented by the petitioner distinguished this case from the one where documents were remitted for verification.

4. Ultimately, the Court found the writ petition devoid of merits and dismissed it, without any costs imposed. The decision was deemed final and also disposed of another related writ petition. The judgment underscored the importance of complete documentation with necessary endorsements for establishing the validity of export claims, reaffirming the legal requirements for proof of export in such cases.