2016 (7) TMI 806 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate/ refund claim - export of goods - in one case the container number and seal numbers on various export documents were not tallying; in the other case the date of Mate Receipt was 0502.2009 and as per the endorsement of the Custom Officer the goods had been exported on 05.02.2009 itself whereas the corresponding ARE-I was dated 28.02.2009 and the Shipping Bill was dated 26102.2009. The rebate claim was also rejected for non-submission of BRCs. Held that - Government notes that the applicant failed to give any plausible explanation with regard to above said discrepancies in container No. and Seal No. Further no amendments have been made for correction of Seal No. and Container No. in relevant documents. As such in absence of any such specific explanation other submissions of the applicant fall flat to establish that goods cleared from factory have been actually exported. s regards restricting the rebate to duty @5.15% and to duty paid on FOB value Government finds that in catena of its judgments it has been held that rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of duty i.e. 4% in terms of Notification No.4/06-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended as applicable on the relevant date on the transaction value of exported goods determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act 1944. Ratio of said judgments will be applicable to this case also. As regards the issue of date of Mates Receipt is concerned the applicant contended that they have submitted fresh copy of the relevant Mate Receipt which shows the date as 05.02.3009 this aspect may be condoned. In this regard Government finds no merit in the plea of the applicant as nothing is placed on record to show that the fresh Mate s Receipt was produced before the concerned authorities and that suitable amendments were made in the relevant documents viz. ARE-I etc. Therefore it is rightly held by the lower authorities that goods could not have been exported prior to clearance from factory and rebate is liable for rejection on this ground alone. Revision application rejected - Decided against the revision applicant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rejection of rebate claims by the Deputy Commissioner, Admissibility of rebate claims on FOB value, Requirement of Bank Realization Certificate, Discrepancies in export documents, Duty payable under different Notifications, Non-submission of BRC, Sanction of rebate claim in cash, Date discrepancies in Mate Receipt, Submission of BRC, Admissibility of rebate only on duty paid at effective rate, Evidence of export, Revision Applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act 1944.

Analysis:
The revision applications were filed against the rejection of rebate claims by the Deputy Commissioner based on discrepancies in export documents. The claims were rejected due to issues like container number and seal number discrepancies, date discrepancies in Mate Receipt, and non-submission of Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs). The original authority held that rebate claims are admissible on FOB value at 4% duty payable under a specific notification, not 10% as claimed by the applicant.

The applicants argued that BRCs were not necessary as the goods had reached the destination and payment was received. They also pointed out discrepancies in container numbers and seals, emphasizing the need for proper evidence to establish exports. The applicants cited various legal decisions to support their arguments regarding procedural lapses in rebate claims.

The Government carefully reviewed the case records and observed that the rebate claims were rightly rejected due to discrepancies and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The authorities upheld the rejection based on the admissibility of rebate only on duty paid at the effective rate, which was 4% in this case.

Regarding the date discrepancies in Mate Receipt, the applicants submitted a fresh copy with corrected dates, but the Government found no merit in this argument as no evidence was provided to show the submission of the corrected document to the authorities. The Government upheld the decision that goods could not have been exported prior to clearance from the factory based on the available evidence.

In conclusion, the Government rejected the revision applications as they lacked merit and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the rejection of rebate claims. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper evidence and compliance with procedural requirements in establishing exports and claiming rebates under the Central Excise Act 1944.