2015 (4) TMI 28 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Violation of condition No.2(a) of Notification No.19/04-CE(NT) dated 6.9.04 - goods were not exported direct from factory of manufacture - Held that - If the Central Excise Officer deputed for verification of goods for export is satisfied about the identity of goods, its duty paid character and all other particulars given by exporter, he will endorse such form and permit export. The detailed procedure is given in para 8.1 to 8.6 of circular. In this case, no such procedure is followed as there is not endorsement from Central Excise Officers in Part-A of ARE-1 form. As such condition 2(a) of Notification No.19/04-CE(NT) dated 6.9.04 stands violated. The Central Excise office has not certified the identity of goods and its duty paid character. AS such duty payment of exported goods is not proved. - export of duty paid excisable goods cleared from factory cannot be established. The lower authorities have rightly concluded that export of duty paid goods is not established in this case. As such, the rebate claim is not admissible to the applicant under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Notification No.19/04-CE (NT) dated 6.9.04 - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for rebate of excise duty on exported goods purchased from a first stage dealer.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision application filed by a company against the rejection of their rebate claim for excise duty paid on exported goods purchased from a first stage dealer. The company had exported Potassium Chlorate without subjecting it to any process and claimed a rebate of excise duty paid. However, the department contended that the goods were not exported directly from a factory or warehouse as required by the relevant notification. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the rebate claim.

The applicant argued that the Central Excise Manual and specific provisions in the notification supported their claim for rebate. They emphasized that the duty paid nature of the exported goods was established and cited relevant case laws to support their position. The applicant also highlighted that the lower authorities did not consider their contentions adequately and failed to address the evidence proving the duty paid character of the goods.

During the hearing, the applicant's advocate reiterated the grounds of the revision application, seeking to set aside the impugned orders and obtain consequential relief. However, the government noted that the goods were not exported directly from the factory of manufacture, thereby violating the conditions of the notification. The government emphasized the procedure prescribed for exporting duty paid goods and the necessity of following the specified steps, which were not adhered to in this case.

The government concluded that the applicant failed to establish the identity of the exported goods with the duty paid goods cleared from the factory of manufacture. As a result, the export of duty paid excisable goods was not proven, making the rebate claim inadmissible under the relevant rules and notification. The government upheld the decision of the lower authorities to reject the rebate claim, finding no merit in the revision application.

In summary, the judgment focused on the requirement of exporting duty paid goods directly from a factory or warehouse, the procedural aspects of verifying duty paid character, and the failure of the applicant to establish the necessary correlation between the exported goods and the duty paid goods. The decision highlights the importance of complying with notification conditions and procedural requirements for claiming rebates on excise duty for exported goods.