2016 (7) TMI 867 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate / refund claim - applicant did not submit original and triplicate copy of the ARE-I. - applicant s rebate claim was initially sanctioned by the original authority. The department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) contesting that there were certain discrepancies in documents submitted by the applicant. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed department s appeal. Now the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. Held that - Government finds that based on documentary evidence it needs to be verified whether the original (white) and triplicate (pink) copies of ARE-I were furnished with the rebate claim or not. If these are-found-to be available on record as having been furnished time-of-filing-the rebate claim and are in order then the other issues as listed in para 2 above will also be examined for determining the admissibility of the rebate claim by the original authority. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancies in rebate claim documents submission.
2. Admissibility of rebate claim based on submission of original and triplicate copies of ARE-I.
3. Verification of documentary evidence for submission of original and triplicate copies of ARE-I.

Analysis:
1. The Revision Application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal by M/S. Bliss GVS Pharma Ltd. regarding rebate claims filed under Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant raised grounds including missing triplicate 'pink' copy, discrepancies in dates and invoice numbers, and missing certificates in the rebate claims. The Department filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the Order-in-Original, which was rejected.

2. The applicant contended that all required documents were acknowledged by the sanctioning authority and that physical export had taken place with duty paid goods. The applicant cited circulars and notifications supporting their claim of submitting original and triplicate copies of ARE-I, which were confirmed by the sanctioning authority in the Order-in-Original. The Revisionary Authority emphasized substantial compliance over procedural lapses based on previous judgments.

3. The Government noted discrepancies between the original authority's acknowledgment of original and triplicate copies of ARE-I and the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling that non-submission of these copies rendered the rebate inadmissible. The Government observed the need to verify the submission of these copies to determine the admissibility of the rebate claim. The case was remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision based on the available documentary evidence and a fair opportunity for a hearing.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented and the final decision reached by the Government.