2015 (1) TMI 893 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - discrepancies in FOB value mentioned in shipping bill and ARE-1 - Held that - Applicant department challenged the rebate sanction order of original authority before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there were discrepancies in FOB value mentioned in shipping bill and ARE-1. The applicant contended that this discrepancy is due to typographical error and that they made application for amendment through their CHA, however, the CHA has not given amended copy of shipping bill. The similar plea was taken before Commissioner (Appeals) also. The position remained same even after/at the time of hearing on 11.4.14. Applicant has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of their claim that any such request for amendment of shipping bill is still pending. It is quite clear from the available records that no amendment is carried on the shipping bill even after lapse of six years. Case cannot be kept pending and has to be decided on the basis of available records. - in the absence of any amendment in the shipping bill the value as declared in the shipping bill cannot be changed. As such, Government finds no legal infirmity in the impugned orders and upholds the same - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Revision applications challenging orders-in-appeal regarding rebate claim discrepancies.

Analysis:
1. The revision applications were filed against orders-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II. The applicants, M/s Kora Amruta Exports, Goregaon (W), Mumbai, had filed a rebate claim of Rs. 226671 which was initially sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The department appealed, citing discrepancies in the assessable value and FOB value in the shipping bill. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the department's appeal, leading to the confirmation of the demand for the sanctioned rebate claim.

2. The applicants filed revision applications against the orders-in-appeal on common grounds. They argued that the FOB value discrepancy was a typographical error, and they had informed the rebate sanctioning authority about it. They also contested the demand for refund based on the alleged availing of certain notifications, stating that the ARE-1 did not highlight or mark the availment of those notifications. Additionally, they cited various judgments supporting their position that procedural lapses should not result in denial of rebate once export is proven.

3. The government reviewed the case records and noted that the rebate claim was initially sanctioned but later challenged by the department, leading to the demand for the erroneously sanctioned amount. Despite the applicant's contentions, the government found no evidence of any amendment to the shipping bill to rectify the FOB value discrepancy. As a result, the government upheld the impugned orders, stating that without an amendment, the declared value in the shipping bill cannot be changed. Consequently, the revision applications were rejected for lacking merit.

4. The government's decision was based on the lack of documentary evidence supporting the applicant's claims of a pending amendment to the shipping bill. As no amendment was made even after several years, the government concluded that the case had to be decided based on the available records. Therefore, the revision applications were dismissed, affirming the orders-in-appeal and the demand for the erroneously sanctioned rebate claim.