2016 (7) TMI 432 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Claim of rebate/ refund - export of goods on payment of duty through third party - Certain amount of rebate claim was rejected on the ground that the relevant export documents are not matching as far as declaration of name of exporter is concerned which is a contravention of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. - the name of exporter is declared/mentioned as M/S. Govardhan Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd. on each of the ARE-Is and its corresponding shipping bills, mate receipts and commercial invoices, whereas, corresponding Bills of lading indicate the name of M/S. Ispa Exim Pvt. Ltd., as exporter/shipper of the goods. As such, there is mismatch in the name of exporter. Held that - There is no finding of lower authorities that the duty paid goods have not been exported. In terms of Board s Circular 120/95-cus dated 23.11.1995 and 30.12.2005 dated 12.07.2005 as referred to in impugned Order-in-Original the BRC, GR declaration, export order and invoice should also be to the name of the third party exporter. As such, the merits of the rebate claims need to be re-examined after taking into consideration the documents referred to above. - Order set aside - Matter remanded back for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims due to mismatch in exporter's name on documents.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed against the rejection of rebate claims by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise on the grounds of mismatch in the exporter's name on various documents. The applicant, engaged in the export of PP woven sacks, filed rebate claims amounting to Rs. 9,97,014 with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The rejection was based on the contravention of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the filing of a revision application before the Central Government.

The applicant raised several grounds in the revision application, arguing that the Show Cause Notice was vague and unspecific, and the deficiency memo did not provide valid reasons for rejecting the rebate claims. The applicant highlighted instances where the name of the third-party exporter, M/S. Ispa Exim Pvt. Ltd., was correctly mentioned in the shipping bills, emphasizing the genuineness of the exports and the duty paid nature of the goods. The applicant also cited relevant judgments to support their case, including the procedural requirements for rebate claims.

During the hearing, the government reviewed the case records and observed the discrepancies in the exporter's name on the documents submitted for rebate claims. The original authority rejected the claims based on this mismatch, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the government noted that there was no finding that duty paid goods were not exported, and certain documents indicated the correct exporter's name as M/S. Ispa Exim Pvt. Ltd.

Considering the arguments presented and the lack of specific findings by the lower authorities, the government set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remanded the case back to the original authority for a fresh decision. The original authority was instructed to re-examine the merits of the rebate claims, taking into account all relevant documents, and provide sufficient opportunities for hearings to all concerned parties. The decision was made to ensure a comprehensive review of the case and a fair consideration of the documents presented.

In conclusion, the revision application was disposed of by ordering a fresh examination of the rebate claims to address the issue of mismatch in the exporter's name on the documents, emphasizing the need for a thorough review and consideration of all relevant factors before reaching a final decision.