2016 (7) TMI 802 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Rebate / refund claim - proof of export of goods - discrepancy in ARE-I from - applicant contended that, the customs authorities while signing certificate on triplicate of ARE-I against Part-B inadvertently endorsed wrong shipping bill no. 1044599 which was subsequently was got corrected as no. 1045171 bearing the dated signatures of the customs officers on such corrections made by them dated 07.01.2010. Held that - Government finds no merit in the contention of the applicant regarding filing of appeal before the wrong forum due to incorrect advise of their Counsel, as the notes of guidance of the impugned Order-in-Appeal clearly mentions where appeal would lie in such cases. Also the applicant has failed to place on record any evidence of having filed an appeal in CESTAT or copy of direction from CESTAT. Government, therefore cannot consider exclusion of time spent before CESTAT for purpose of condonation of delay in filing Revision Application. Government observes that despite specific directions, applicant failed to file Revision Application promptly and the above reason for delay appears to be very vague, unclear and an afterthought. Under such circumstances, Government is of considered opinion that the applicant has clearly failed to show sufficient cause which prevented them from filing Revision Application within the prescribed time limit under Section 35 EE. As such, the applicant s application of condonation of delay is liable for rejection in view of aforesaid discussion. Delay not condoned - Revision application rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Procedural discrepancies in the endorsement of shipping bill numbers.
2. Verification and rectification of shipping bill numbers by Customs Authorities.
3. Delay in filing the revision application and condonation of delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Procedural discrepancies in the endorsement of shipping bill numbers:
The applicant, engaged in the manufacture and export of Galvanized Steel Pipes/Tubes, encountered an issue with the endorsement of shipping bill numbers on ARE-I forms. Specifically, the Customs Authority mentioned shipping bill No. 1044599 on ARE-I No. RST/121/09-10 dated 08.01.2010, while the applicant submitted shipping bill No. 1045171 along with the same ARE-I. This discrepancy led to the rejection of a rebate claim amounting to Rs. 1,54,250. The applicant argued that the error was a human mistake by the Customs officials and should not be a basis for denying the rebate claim, especially since all other documents (shipping bill, bill of lading, bank realization certificate) substantiated the export.

2. Verification and rectification of shipping bill numbers by Customs Authorities:
The applicant contended that the Customs authorities inadvertently endorsed the wrong shipping bill number, which was later corrected with dated signatures of the Customs officers. They argued that the department failed to verify the corrected shipping bill number despite several reminders and that the substantive right to rebate should not be denied due to procedural lapses. The applicant cited several case laws to support the argument that procedural infractions should be condoned if exports have genuinely taken place.

3. Delay in filing the revision application and condonation of delay:
The applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Ghaziabad, which was rejected. Subsequently, the applicant filed a revision application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with an application for condonation of delay. The applicant explained that they were pursuing the wrong remedy before the CESTAT due to erroneous advice from their consultant. However, the government found no merit in this contention as the applicant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting the claim of filing an appeal before the CESTAT or any direction from the CESTAT to file an appeal before the Revisionary Authority. The government noted that the applicant's delay in filing the revision application was beyond the condonable period and appeared to be vague and an afterthought.

Conclusion:
The government rejected the application for condonation of delay, stating that the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed as time-barred without delving into the merits of the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the necessity of providing substantial evidence when seeking condonation of delay.