2019 (10) TMI 1337 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - rejection on the ground that exported goods were completely different from the goods for which rebate claim was filed - HELD THAT - The essential condition for granting the rebate is that the goods get exported and duty has been paid on such export goods in terms of Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 read with Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. It is not in dispute that the respondent has exported the impugned goods and filed claim for rebate of duty on inputs with jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. There is a procedural lapse on the part of the respondent, since CETH on shipping bill has been mentioned wrongly due to oversight. The applicant has not challenged the Bank Realisation Certificate mentioning details relating to invoice no. and date, description of goods, customs authenticated shipping bill, bill of lading and FOB value realized in Foreign Exchange. The fact that the customs preventive officer has certified the export of impugned consignment and remittance has also been received against the said export has not been contested. Government does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence revision application is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of rebate rejection based on procedural grounds.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over a rebate claim filed by a company regarding duty paid on inputs used in processing goods for export. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim citing non-compliance with certain procedural requirements. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing that the export goods' identity was established, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

The revision application was filed challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, arguing that the exported goods differed from those for which the rebate claim was made. The case was subsequently brought before the CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal, advising the Revenue to seek redressal through the revisional authority. The applicant then filed a Revision Application, seeking condonation of delay due to an error in filing the appeal before the appropriate forum.

During the hearing, the respondent clarified that the discrepancy in the RITC code on the shipping bill was an oversight, and the goods exported were the same as those mentioned in the claim. The Customs Officers at the dock area oversaw the export process. Despite the applicant's absence during the hearings, the Review Order was deemed valid, and objections regarding the filing of the Revision Application were dismissed as frivolous.

The Government's examination of the case records revealed that the essential condition for granting the rebate was met, as the goods were exported, and duty was paid. Although a procedural lapse occurred due to an incorrect CETH mentioned on the shipping bill, other supporting documents were not contested. Citing relevant judgments, the Government allowed the rebate amount to the respondent.

Conclusively, the Government found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the revision application. The decision was based on the compliance with essential conditions for rebate and the precedents cited in similar cases.