2019 (3) TMI 859 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate claim - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - DEEC Scheme - Held that - It is admitted by the parties that, the petitioner exported Py Gas by three several ARE 1 forms bearing No. 481/0304 dated September 3, 2003, 574/0304 dated November 7, 2003 and 618/2003 dated November 28, 2003. The petitioner submitted rebate claims on October 20, 2003, January 14, 2004 and January 15, 2004. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the ARE 1 forms are not the only documents for grant of rebate claim in view of the notification bearing No. 19/2004 CE (NT) dated September 4, 2004. Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 contemplates that, the Central Government may grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on material used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and that, the rebate would be subject to such conditions or limitations if any and fulfilment of such procedure as may be prescribed in the notification. The notification dated September 6, 2004 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. The notification dated September 6, 2004 lays down the procedure by which, an application for grant of rebate is to be considered - A claimant making a claim is required to substantiate such claim by cogent evidence. The claim is required to be adjudicated on merits. A claimant can succeed to substantiate its claim on the basis of all or any of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Instructions, 2005 or on the basis of secondary evidence. What is required is that the claim is substantiated by cogent evidence. Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Instructions, 2005 is required to be read in such context. If a claimant is in a position to substantiate its claim for rebate in the basis of any of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Instructions, 2005 or by leading secondary evidence with regard to its claim, then such claim is required to be allowed notwithstanding the failure of the claimant to produce all the documents mentioned therein. The revisional authority is incorrect when, it disallows the claim. It is not the case of the respondents that, the ARE-1 forms are questionable documents. The validity and the veracity of the ARE-1 forms have not been doubted by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings till date. The ARE-1 forms are issued by the authorities themselves. Therefore, in absence of the respondents doubting the veracity of the ARE-1 forms, the adjudicating authority ought to have allowed the claim for rebate as made by the petitioner. The order of the revisional authority is quashed - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of revisional authority disallowing rebate claim under DEEC Scheme.

Analysis:
The petitioner exported Pyrolisis Gasoline (Py Gas) using Naptha as raw material under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme. The rebate claims accompanied by ARE-1 Forms were rejected, leading to a show cause notice alleging contravention of Central Excise Rules. The order in original was in favor of the petitioner, which was upheld on appeal but challenged by the department in revisional application, resulting in the impugned order disallowing the claim for rebate. The petitioner contended that the ARE-1 Forms, duly sanctioned, are conclusive evidence of exports, supported by legal provisions and case law.

The respondents argued that the rebate claim lacked requisite documents as per the notification dated September 6, 2004, issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. They emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements for rebate claims, indicating that the revisional authority rightly remanded the matter for further consideration by the appellate authority.

The notification dated September 6, 2004 outlines procedures for sealing goods for export and specifies documents required for claiming rebate, as per Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The Supplementary Instructions, 2005, further elaborate on the documents necessary for filing a rebate claim, emphasizing the need for cogent evidence to substantiate the claim. The judgment highlights that failure to produce all stipulated documents does not automatically invalidate the claim, as supplementary evidence can be considered.

The court held that the revisional authority erred in disallowing the rebate claim, emphasizing that the veracity of the ARE-1 Forms, which were not questioned by the respondents, should have been sufficient to support the claim. The judgment quashed the order of the revisional authority, directing compliance with the appellate authority's decision. The case was disposed of without costs, with provisions for urgent certified copies of the order to be made available to the parties upon request.