2019 (12) TMI 471 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate claim - denied on the ground that the description of goods in ARE-1 and excise invoices do not tally with the description in the shipping bills and commercial invoices as well as purchase orders placed by foreign buyers - Onus to prove - HELD THAT - The crucial aspect of the rebate claim ought to have been tallied before the rebate is given and since the description of goods mentioned in ARE-1 and excise invoices do not tally with the description of the shipping bills and the commercial invoices as well as with the purchase orders placed by the foreign buyers, it is found that no error has been committed by the lower authorities in passing the Order-in-Original, and the order in Appeal and in further rejecting the revision petition, vide the impugned order. Onus to prove - HELD THAT - Whenever the assessee claims rebate, the primary and foremost consideration is the identity of goods and the onus to prove the same lies on the claimant, who, in this case has failed to do so, even as observed by the Revisional Authority - Moreover, the findings of fact warrant no interference. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to denial of rebate on grounds of mismatch in goods description and weight in export documents.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged the denial of rebate by the Revisional Authority based on discrepancies in the description of goods in various documents. The Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal also rejected the claims due to inconsistencies in the descriptions provided. The Revisional Authority noted differences in gross/net weight and part numbers on the export forms. The petitioner argued that they are entitled to rebate as the goods were exported and verified by customs authorities. However, all three authorities consistently found discrepancies in the descriptions provided, which are crucial for granting rebates. The court emphasized that the identity of goods must match across all documents for rebate claims. The petitioner failed to prove the identity of goods, as highlighted by the Revisional Authority, and the court found no errors in the lower authorities' decisions. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the findings of fact do not warrant interference, and the onus to prove the identity of goods lies on the claimant.

This case highlights the importance of consistency in goods description across export documents for rebate claims. The court stressed that the identity of goods must be established by the claimant to qualify for rebates. Discrepancies in descriptions provided in different documents can lead to the rejection of rebate claims, as seen in this case. The judgment underscores the significance of accurate documentation and the need for claimants to meet the burden of proof regarding the identity of exported goods. Inconsistencies in descriptions can result in denial of rebates, as observed in the decisions of the lower authorities and upheld by the court in this case.