2016 (7) TMI 353 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate/ refund - export of goods - adjudicating authority allowed the same to be taken as Cenvat Credit under respective head as the duty was debited originally in the Cenvat account and ordered rejection of ₹ 2,19/253/- as inadmissible claim in respect of 4 number of ARE-Is. - Held that - Government observes that the part rebate claims of ₹ 261381/- was rejected on ground that there is huge variation of weight between ARE-Is, and Air Way Bills, the sealing date is not correct in one of the ARE-I and the vessel/make, flight No. does not tally with Airway Bill, Bill of Lading and as such, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the goods under the said AREs-1 have been exported. - during this revisionary proceedings also no such documentary evidences were produced to controvert above said observation of-lower authorities. - rejection of rebate claim on these grounds is correct. - Decided against the applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate application under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act 1944.
2. Rejection of part rebate claims by the original authority.
3. Discrepancies in weight and documentation between excise and export documents.
4. Compliance with conditions for claiming rebate under Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT).

Issue 1: Rebate application under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act 1944:
The Revision Application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the rebate application filed by M/S Xomox Sanmar Ltd. for duties paid on exported goods. The lower authority had sanctioned a partial rebate and excess paid duty refund, but also rejected part of the claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the Revision Application before the Central Government. The applicant argued that the method of calculating air freight by airlines should not be compared with actual quantities, emphasizing the value stated in invoices and bank realization certificates. The applicant also cited various case laws to support their contentions.

Issue 2: Rejection of part rebate claims by the original authority:
The original authority rejected part rebate claims of the applicant amounting to a significant sum due to discrepancies in weight between ARE-Is and Air Way Bills, incorrect sealing date, and mismatches in vessel/flight details. The rejection was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the decision. The Revision Application reiterated the grounds for challenging the rejection, but the Government observed that no documentary evidence was presented to contradict the original authority's findings. The lack of evidence led to the upholding of the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Central Government.

Issue 3: Discrepancies in weight and documentation between excise and export documents:
The rejection of part rebate claims by the original authority was primarily based on discrepancies concerning vessel/flight numbers and dates, as well as differences in weight between excise and export documents. The appellate authority noted the absence of documentary evidence to dispute the rejection. During the revisionary proceedings, no new evidence was presented to counter the lower authorities' observations. Consequently, the Government found no fault in the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority regarding the discrepancies, leading to the rejection of the Revision Application.

Issue 4: Compliance with conditions for claiming rebate under Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT):
The Government emphasized the importance of strict compliance with conditions when claiming rebate under Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT). The applicant's plea for procedural relaxation on technical grounds was dismissed, citing a judgment that highlighted the necessity of fulfilling prescribed conditions for concessional relief of duty. The Government rejected the argument that procedural lapses should be condoned and upheld the rejection of the Revision Application on these grounds.

In conclusion, the Central Government rejected the Revision Application filed by M/S Xomox Sanmar Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the rebate application, part rebate claims rejection, discrepancies in documentation, and the importance of compliance with conditions for claiming rebates under relevant notifications.