2018 (4) TMI 1653 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate of duty - rejection of rebate on the ground of non-submission of Central Excise invoice in respect of exported goods - whether procedural lapse or otherwise? - Held that - Non-issuing of invoice is primarily a breach of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and is not a sole evidence of payment of duty. But no penal action is apparently taken against the respondent for non-issuing of the invoice in contravention of Rule 11 and rather this lapse is being used by the applicant for denial of rebate of duty. Submission of copy of the invoice along with rebate claim is not a condition in the above Notification and its requirement in the C.B.E. & C. s Manual of Supplementary Instructions is just for guiding the departmental officers for ensuring sanctioning rebate of duty against duty paid exported goods only. But it cannot be given precedence over Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004 for denial of rebate of duty to the respondent which is granted as an incentive by the Government of India to encourage maximum exports from this country. The Government does not find any error in the Orders-in-Appeal - revision application filed by Revenue rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing the Revision Application
- Non-issuance of Central Excise invoice for exported goods
- Denial of rebate of duty based on non-submission of invoice
- Compliance with Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004
- Validity of the Orders-in-Appeal

Delay in filing the Revision Application:
The Revision Application was filed after a delay of 7 days, but the delay was condoned as the applicant forwarded the application within the time limit, and the delay in receipt was attributed to postal delays. The Government found the reasons provided for the delay to be valid and thus condoned the delay.

Non-issuance of Central Excise invoice for exported goods:
The main issue raised in the Revision Application was the non-issuance of the Central Excise invoice for exported goods. The applicant argued that this was a breach of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the lack of invoice issuance was not considered a sole evidence of non-payment of duty, and no penal action was taken against the respondent for this lapse.

Denial of rebate of duty based on non-submission of invoice:
The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the rebate of duty based on the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner's decision to allow the rebate. The Commissioner noted that the non-submission of the invoice was not sufficient grounds for denying the rebate, as the primary condition for rebate under Rule 18 was the actual export of goods on payment of duty, which was confirmed by export certificates and payment of duty.

Compliance with Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004:
The Government found that the conditions stipulated in Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004 had been met in this case, as the goods were cleared for export under ARE-1 and were actually exported on payment of duty. The submission of the invoice along with the rebate claim was not a mandatory condition under the Notification, and the denial of rebate based solely on non-submission of the invoice was deemed incorrect.

Validity of the Orders-in-Appeal:
After thorough examination, the Government did not find any error in the Orders-in-Appeal and concluded that the Revision Application filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Government rejected the Revision Application, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Appeals to allow the rebate of duty based on the compliance with Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004.