2014 (12) TMI 1131 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Act Procedural infraction do not prohibit the Assessee from the benefit of rebate - Goods had not been directly exported from a factory or warehouse. The warehouse from which the goods had been exported was a dealer s godown in which duty paid goods were being stored and it was not a warehouse approved under Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 As per Adjudicating Authority, the identity/correlation of the goods originally cleared from the manufacturing unit with goods cleared from the godown could not be established - The Jurisdictional Superintendent has not supervised/verified the goods Held that - No advantage can be derived from an order passed by the Government in the case of Philip Electronics India Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 862 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE . Once the exporter submits proof of the goods having been actually exported to the satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority, the goods were clearly identifiable and co-relatable with the goods cleared from factory on payment of duty, then, para 6 of the Circular issued by the Board enables waiving of or technical departure from procedural requirements. Those not having any revenue implications that they can be condoned. All the statutory requirements emerging from Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 are satisfied and neither the Commissioner nor the Revisional Authority has committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record so also their orders cannot be termed as perverse enabling us to interfere in our Writ Jurisdiction - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding rebate claim rejection based on goods export identity.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard a Writ Petition challenging the order dismissing a Revision Application under section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The dispute revolved around the identity of goods claimed for rebate concerning their exportation. The Petitioner argued that the goods cleared from the factory were not the same as those exported, citing discrepancies in dates and lack of verification by the jurisdictional Superintendent. The Commissioner allowed the Appeal without addressing these crucial factors, leading to the challenge. The Respondent, on the other hand, supported the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority and the Government, contending that the Court cannot reevaluate factual findings in a Writ Petition.

Upon thorough examination of the case, the Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of establishing the correlation and identity of goods claimed for rebate with those exported. The order-in-original highlighted the absence of essential identification marks on the goods and the lack of necessary certificates. The Appellate Authority scrutinized the records and found discrepancies in the warehouse where the goods were stored before export. However, the Superintendent verified the duty payment and confirmed the identity of goods under the respective ARE1. The Revisional Authority carefully reviewed the entire record, including compliance with relevant regulations for controlled substances, and concluded that the goods' identity was established despite procedural deviations.

The Court distinguished a precedent where goods were not exported from the factory, emphasizing the importance of satisfying conditions for rebate claims based on direct export from the factory or warehouse. The judgment in the present case aligned with the statutory requirements under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Referring to a Circular, the Court clarified that technical departures from procedural requirements could be condoned if the goods' exportation was adequately proven. Ultimately, the Court found no legal errors in the Commissioner's or Revisional Authority's orders, dismissing the Writ Petition due to the satisfaction of all statutory requirements and the absence of perversity in the orders.