2015 (1) TMI 894 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - failure to follow the mandatory provisions as required under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and Notification 43/01-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 - Held that - applicant prepared the ARE under claim of rebate and paid applicable duty at the time of removal of goods. The original authority in rebate sanctioning orders have categorically held that applicants have exported the goods under claim of rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise-Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE/(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and also that range Superintendent confirmed the verification of duty payment. As such, the exported goods are duty paid goods. Once, it has been certified that exported goods have suffered duty at the time of removal, it can be logically implied that provisions of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.09.04 and Notification 43/01-ce(NT) dated 26.06.01 cannot be applied in such cases. There is no independent evidences on record to show that the applicant have exported the goods without payment of duty under ARE-2 or under Bond. Under such circumstances, Government finds force in contention of applicant that they have by mistake ticked in ARE-1 form declaration and they have not availed benefit of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.09.04 and Notification 43/01-CE(NT) dated 26.06.01. There is no dispute regarding export of duty paid goods. Simply ticking a wrong declaration in ARE-1 form cannot be a basis for rejecting the substantial benefit of rebate claim. Under such circumstances, the rebate claims cannot be rejected for procedural lapses of wrong ticking. In catena of judgements, the Government of India has held that benefit of rebate claim cannot be denied for minor procedural infraction when substantial compliance of provisions of notification and rules is made by claimant. Applying the ratio of such decisions, Government finds that rebate claims in impugned cases cannot be held inadmissible. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Time-barred appeal filed by department before Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Mistaken declaration on ARE-1 form regarding availing benefits of specific notifications.
4. Export of goods under claim of rebate and duty payment.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal against rebate claims filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The department contested that the applicant failed to follow prescribed procedures under specific notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the department, leading to a revision application by the applicant before the Central Government.

2. The issue of a time-barred appeal filed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) was raised. The appellate authority determined that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limits as per the Central Excise Act 1944. The Government concurred with this finding, noting that the applicant did not provide any documentary evidence to challenge the factual observations.

3. A crucial aspect of the case involved a mistaken declaration on the ARE-1 form regarding availing benefits of certain notifications. The applicant contended that the incorrect ticking was a procedural mistake and should not invalidate the rebate claim. The Government examined relevant documents and found that the goods were exported under the correct notification, despite the mistaken declaration. The Government emphasized that minor procedural errors should not lead to the rejection of substantial rebate claims.

4. The final issue pertained to the export of goods under a claim of rebate and duty payment. The Government reviewed the rebate claims, confirming that the goods were exported under the correct notification and duty was paid. The Government concluded that the procedural lapses, such as the mistaken declaration on the ARE-1 form, should not invalidate the rebate claims when substantial compliance with notification and rules was evident. Consequently, the Government set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and allowed the revision application.