2015 (4) TMI 71 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - basic requirement of Rule 18 ibid for considering rebate claim that the goods should be exported, has not been fulfilled by the claimant in as much as they have short shipped 92 cartons out of the total 535 cartons mentioned on the ARE-I No.33/04-05 dated 10.06.2004 - it was not possible to ascertain the exact quantity and quality of processed fabrics short shipped on the basis of available record - Held that - appellate authority has categorically held that 92 cartons which were short shipped do not pertain to ARE-1 No. 33/04-05 dated 10.6.2004 and all the 535 cartons pertaining to said ARE-1 have been exported. Such factual observations of appellate authority has not been controverted by department by any substantial documentary evidence. Department failed to adduce any evidence that the short shipped 92 cartons pertain to goods covered vide impugned ARE-1. Under such circumstances the findings of appellate authority cannot be faulted with. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claim due to short shipment of cartons, Manipulation of carton serial numbers in short shipment notice, Failure to submit original copy of short shipment notice, Lack of response to Show Cause Notice, Decision based on available records without attendance at hearing.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed against the rejection of a rebate claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-III. The claim was rejected because the goods were short shipped, and the exact quantity and quality of processed fabrics could not be ascertained due to missing serial numbers on the short shipment notice. The exporter appealed, arguing that the short shipment notice did not relate to the specific export in question, and therefore, they were entitled to the rebate. The department contended that the serial numbers on the short shipment notice were manipulated to support the claim. The original authority's findings supported the department's stance on the manipulation of serial numbers. The appellate authority noted discrepancies in the short shipment notice and ruled in favor of the exporter, stating that the short shipped cartons did not pertain to the specific export mentioned. The government reviewed the case records and upheld the appellate authority's decision, finding no fault in their factual observations.

The government observed that the rejection of the rebate claim was mainly due to the short shipment of cartons and the inability to determine the exact quantity and quality of goods based on available records. The appellate authority confirmed that the short shipped cartons did not correspond to the specific export mentioned in the claim, and all the cartons related to that export had been exported. The department failed to provide substantial evidence to refute the appellate authority's findings, leading to the government upholding the decision in favor of the exporter. The revision application was rejected for lacking merit, and the order was upheld.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of short shipment, manipulation of serial numbers, lack of evidence from the department, and the decision based on available records. The government upheld the appellate authority's ruling in favor of the exporter, emphasizing the importance of factual observations and evidence in such cases.