2016 (9) TMI 983 - HC - Central Excise

Disallowance of rebate - goods manufactured by SAIL were exported - petitioner had allegedly committed procedural lapses which was condoned on the earlier occasion - validity of Revision order under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - the revisional authority has not found that, the petitioner did not export Central Excise Duty Paid goods out of India, or that the relevant ARE forms do not bear the appropriate customs endorsements. The alleged procedural lapses for the consignment under consideration have also not been alluded to or identified. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to Order under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding rebate claim for exported goods; Discrepancy in treatment of identical issues by revisional authority in earlier consignment; Entitlement to rebate for exported goods; Procedural lapses condoned in earlier consignment affecting rebate claim.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed the challenge to an Order under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning a rebate claim for goods exported to Bangladesh. The petitioner, a merchant exporter, had faced a discrepancy in treatment of identical issues by the revisional authority in an earlier consignment. In the prior consignment, it was established that the goods exported were manufactured by the Steel Authority of India Limited and cleared after payment of Central Excise Duty, making the petitioner eligible for rebate under Section 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

In the current case, the petitioner exported goods manufactured by SAIL and applied for rebate, which was initially disallowed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Kolkata allowed the appeal. Subsequently, a revisional application filed by the department was approved through the impugned order. The revisional authority based its decision on alleged procedural lapses, which were condoned in the earlier consignment, leading to the denial of the rebate claim. Notably, the revisional authority did not find any evidence suggesting that the goods were not exported as Central Excise Duty Paid or that the relevant ARE forms lacked appropriate customs endorsements. The specific procedural lapses for the current consignment were neither mentioned nor identified by the revisional authority.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the parties to comply with the directions issued by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Kolkata. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs being issued. This judgment highlights the importance of consistent treatment of issues by the revisional authority and the need for clear justification when rejecting rebate claims based on alleged procedural lapses.