2016 (7) TMI 772 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Claim of rebate/ refund - export of goods - ARE-Is, did not have a certification of the Central Excise Officer that the export goods were sealed with Central Excise seal before the Officers. - The ARE-Is also did not bear a declaration of the exporter that the consignment has been packed and sealed in his presence by the seal, indicating that the goods claimed to have been cleared for export, had been cleared from the factory without any sealing. - Held that - Government observes that any export clearance, intended to be made for claiming duty rebate, will be subject to Rule 18 ibid read with Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004. ARE-I is the principle document under the said notification that establishes that the applicant has either followed the procedure for sealing of goods and examination of goods at place of dispatch either by Central Excise Officer or by self-sealing. If the clearances have been made without following the procedure described above, it cannot be established that goods which were cleared from factory were the ones actually exported or that goods exported cannot be correlated with goods cleared from the factory. Leniencies in the sealing procedure could lead to possible fraud of claiming an alternatively available benefit which may lead to additional/double benefits. Therefore, Government notes that requirement and procedure of sealing either by Central Excise Officers or by self sealing is both a statutory condition and mandatory in substance for removal of goods for exports under claim for rebate of duty in the present case the applicant has admittedly failed to comply with the provisions by neither following the provision for scaling of goods at place of dispatch under excise supervision nor the self sealing procedure. - Claim rejected - Decided against the applicant.

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the procedure for sealing export goods.
2. Verification of the identity and quantity of exported goods.
3. Correlation between duty-paid goods and exported goods.
4. Admissibility of rebate claims under Central Excise Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with the procedure for sealing export goods:
The applicant, engaged in manufacturing rolled products, filed a rebate claim for duty paid on exported goods. The claim was rejected because the consignment lacked certification from the Central Excise Officer and a declaration from the exporter regarding the sealing of goods. The applicant contended they adopted the self-sealing procedure but failed to declare it in their rebate application. The government emphasized that the sealing procedure, whether by Central Excise Officers or self-sealing, is a statutory and mandatory requirement for claiming a rebate. Non-compliance with this procedure prevents the establishment that the goods cleared from the factory are the same as those exported.

2. Verification of the identity and quantity of exported goods:
The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) noted discrepancies between the quantities and weights of goods mentioned in export documents and those cleared from the factory. The applicant's failure to follow the prescribed procedures for sealing and examination of goods at the place of dispatch raised doubts about the identity of the exported goods. The government reiterated that the verification of identity and quantity through proper sealing and documentation is crucial to prevent fraud and ensure the legitimacy of rebate claims.

3. Correlation between duty-paid goods and exported goods:
The original authority rejected the rebate claim due to the lack of evidence linking duty-paid goods cleared from the factory with the exported goods. The applicant argued that other export documents, such as the Bill of Lading, Export Invoice, Mate Receipt, Shipping Bill, and Packing List, should suffice to establish this correlation. However, the government maintained that adherence to the sealing procedures is essential to establish this link. The absence of proper sealing and certification procedures undermined the credibility of the applicant's claim.

4. Admissibility of rebate claims under Central Excise Rules:
The government referenced Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT), which outline the procedures for export on payment of duty under a rebate claim. The government emphasized that the procedures for sealing and examination of goods are mandatory and non-compliance with these procedures disqualifies the rebate claim. The applicant's reliance on case laws was deemed inapplicable to the present case due to the specific statutory requirements that were not met.

Conclusion:
The government upheld the orders of the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the rebate claim due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures for sealing and verifying export goods. The revision application was dismissed as devoid of merit, reaffirming the necessity of strict adherence to statutory requirements for claiming rebates under Central Excise Rules.

← Previous Next →