2016 (7) TMI 868 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate / refund claim - The applicants contended that the declaration made on as ARE-I was clerical in nature and same may be condoned as a procedural mistake. - applicant failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 as declared by them at Sl.No.3(b) of the impugned ARE-I - Held that - Once, it has been certified that exported goods have suffered duty at the time of removal, it can be logically implied that provisions of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.09.04 and Notification 43/01-CE (NT) dated 26.062001 cannot be applied in such cases. There is no independent evidences on record to show that the applicant have exported the goods without payment of duty under ARE-2 or under Bond. Under such circumstances, Government finds force in contention of applicant that they have by mistake ticked in ARE-I form declaration and they have not availed benefit of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.092004 and Notification 43/01-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001. In this case, there is no dispute regarding export of duty paid goods. Simply ticking a wrong declaration in ARE-I form cannot be a basis for rejecting the substantial benefit of rebate claim. However since it is a matter of fact which requires verification in view of rival claims, therefore, the case is remanded back to the original authority to verify the claim of the applicant that they have not availed benefit of Notification 21/04CE(NT) dated 06109.2004 and Notification 43/01-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 and thereafter subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner the rebate claim may be disposed off accordingly. A reasonable opportunity of hearing may be given to concerned parties.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original on procedural grounds
2. Time limitation for filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)
3. Rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002

Analysis:
1. The revision application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal by M/S Fichem, Ahmedabad, challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) in favor of the department. The department contended that the applicant failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) and that the appeal was time-barred. The applicant argued that the declaration made on ARE-I was clerical in nature and should be condoned as a procedural mistake. They also highlighted a mistake in the declaration form and emphasized that the rebate claim pertained to the final product, not inputs. The Government observed the contentions but agreed with the findings of the appellate authority regarding the time limitation for filing the appeal.

2. The Government further analyzed the rebate claims filed by the applicant under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant exported goods under Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) and mistakenly ticked declarations for other notifications. However, they exported goods under the correct notification and paid applicable duty. The original authority confirmed duty payment and endorsed the ARE-I, indicating verification. The Government noted that the exported goods were duty paid, and the incorrect declaration in the form should not lead to the rejection of the rebate claim. The case was remanded to the original authority for verification and a fresh decision, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not deny substantial benefits of a rebate claim.

3. In conclusion, the Government set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision by the original authority. The revision application was disposed of accordingly, providing a reasonable opportunity for all concerned parties to be heard.