2014 (12) TMI 994 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - non submission of impugned excise invoices - Held that - Applicant has contended that they have submitted original copies of impugned excise invoices along with rebate claim. During personal hearing also they have submitted copies of acknowledgement of rebate sanctioning office regarding receipt of such rebate claim. On perusal of such acknowledgement, Government finds that at Sr. (2) of such claim, it is clearly mentioned that the applicant submitted impugned excise invoices along with other relevant documents. However, subsequently, deficiency memo cum call for personal hearing cum show cause notice was issued for non submission of said central excise invoices. Government notes that when the applicant submitted proof of submission of impugned excise invoices in form of acknowledgement of rebate sanctioning office, it can not be categorically held against applicant that they have not submitted the same and rebate claims cannot be held inadmissible on this count only. As such, proof of evidence weigh in favour of the applicant and rebate claims can t be held inadmissible alleging non- submission of excise invoices. Even if copy of excise invoices are not submitted, the export of duty paid goods may be ascertained on the basis of other collateral documents. In this case there is no dispute of payment of duty per se, which is also evident from copies of impugned AREs-1 where in such duty particulars are clearly given. Further there is no dispute that such duty paid goods have not actually been exported. Under such circumstances, when substantial condition of export of duty paid goods stands established, the rebate claims cant be held inadmissible considering a situation that excise invoices are not submitted - as regards rebate specifically, it is now a established law that the procedural infraction of Notifications, circulars, etc. are to be condoned if exports have really taken place, and the law is settled now that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Procedure has been prescribed to facilitate verification of substantive requirement. The core aspect or fundamental requirement for rebate is manufacture and subsequent export. As long as this requirement is met other procedural deviations can be condoned. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claim due to non-submission of central excise invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision application filed against the rejection of rebate claims by M/s Tricon Enterprises (P) Ltd. The rebate claims were rejected by the rebate sanctioning authority for two main reasons. Firstly, the applicants failed to clear the goods for export in Form ARE-2 with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/DC in charge of the manufacturing premises. Secondly, the applicants did not submit the invoices issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules 2002 along with the rebate claims. The applicants contended that the rejection was based on erroneous grounds and submitted evidence to support their claims.

The revision application argued that the rejection of the rebate claim was unjustified as the act of striking off a portion in the ARE-1 form was an inadvertent error, and the rebate claim was solely for excise duty paid on finished goods, not inputs. The applicants also disputed the non-submission of invoices, providing evidence that contradicted the findings of the lower authorities. They emphasized that all necessary documents were submitted to support the rebate claim, and any procedural lapses should be condoned, especially since the goods were exported, and duty was paid at the time of clearance.

During the hearing, the Government reviewed the case records and acknowledged that the rebate claims were deemed inadmissible due to the non-submission of central excise invoices. However, upon examining the evidence presented by the applicants, including proof of submission of invoices and export of duty-paid goods, the Government found in favor of the applicants. Citing a judgment by the Bombay High Court, the Government emphasized that if the conditions for the rebate were fulfilled, the non-submission of certain documents should not be a sole reason for rejecting the claim.

The Government highlighted the export-oriented nature of rebate schemes and stressed the importance of not unduly restricting benefits based on technicalities. Referring to various judicial precedents, the Government emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation in cases where the substantive fact of export is established, even if there are procedural lapses. The Government ultimately set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the Revision Application, ruling in favor of the applicants based on the evidence presented and the established legal principles regarding procedural infractions in the context of exports and rebates.