2016 (7) TMI 865 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate / Refund claim - part of the claim rejected on the ground that applicant has not given any explanation for non-filing of Bill of Lading. - Held that - the applicant relied on the various judgments regarding procedural relaxation on technical grounds. The point which needs to be emphasized is that when the applicant seeks rebate under Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004, which prescribes compliance of certain conditions, the same cannot be ignored. While claiming the rebate under Rule 18 ibid, the applicant should have ensured strict compliance of the conditions attached to the said Notification. As such, there is no merit in the plea of the applicant that the lapse on their part be considered as procedural lapse of a technical nature which may be condoned. - Claim of rightly rejected - Decided against the assessee.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of rebate claim in respect of ARE-1 N.1736 dated 30.12.2010.
2. Disallowance of rebate claim due to discrepancies and procedural lapses.
3. Rejection of rebate claim for non-submission of EP copies/Bill of Lading.
4. Compliance with conditions for claiming rebate under Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT).

Issue 1: Disallowance of rebate claim in respect of ARE-1 N.1736 dated 30.12.2010:
The Revision Application was filed against the rejection of the rebate claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in relation to ARE-1 N.1736 dated 30.12.2010. The applicant contended that they had submitted all necessary details along with a self-attested copy of the relevant Bill of Lading for the ARE-1 on the same day as the rebate claim filing. The applicant argued that any procedural lapses should not lead to the denial of the rebate claim, especially when the fact of export is not in doubt. However, the Government observed that the lower authority had rejected the rebate claim due to discrepancies, including the absence of mandatory documents like the Bill of Lading. The Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and rejected the Revision Application on this ground.

Issue 2: Disallowance of rebate claim due to discrepancies and procedural lapses:
The applicant raised concerns regarding the rejection of rebate claims for various ARE-1s due to discrepancies and procedural lapses. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected the claims citing reasons such as non-submission of EP copies or non-legible copies of Bill of Lading. The appellate authority directed the original authority to verify the fact of export for the rejected claims where discrepancies were noted. The Government found that the appellate authority had appropriately reviewed the situation and upheld the rejection of rebate claims only where substantial discrepancies existed. The Government supported the detailed findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard.

Issue 3: Rejection of rebate claim for non-submission of EP copies/Bill of Lading:
The original authority had rejected rebate claims for specific ARE-1s due to non-submission of EP copies or Bill of Lading, or submission of non-legible copies. The appellate authority emphasized the importance of submitting mandatory documents like the Bill of Lading for verifying the export of goods. The appellate authority directed the lower authority to allow rebate claims after ensuring the fact of export for certain ARE-1s. The Government found no fault in this detailed analysis and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the rejection of rebate claims based on document submission issues.

Issue 4: Compliance with conditions for claiming rebate under Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT):
The applicant argued for procedural relaxation on technical grounds and cited various judgments in support. However, the Government highlighted the necessity of strict compliance with the conditions attached to claiming rebates under Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT). The Government referred to a judgment emphasizing that concessional relief of duty dependent on certain conditions must be complied with, even if those conditions are considered directory. The Government rejected the plea of the applicant for considering their lapses as procedural and technical in nature, emphasizing the importance of complying with prescribed conditions.

In conclusion, the Revision Application was rejected by the Government on the grounds of discrepancies in document submission, procedural lapses, and the necessity of strict compliance with conditions for claiming rebates under relevant notifications. The Government upheld the decisions of the appellate authority and emphasized the importance of fulfilling all mandatory requirements for rebate claims.

← Previous Next →