2022 (6) TMI 5 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of rebate claim - denial of rebate on the ground of discrepancy in the export documents - HELD THAT - Refund of input tax credit on exports made under bond/LUT under Rule 5 of the Central Tax Credit Rules, 2004 and rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is an export incentive given apart from the export incentive in the form of duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w Customs, Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 as replaced by 2017 Rules apart from various export incentive that are given to an exporter under the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. The order of the original authority after remand confirmed that the petitioner had indeed exported goods and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for rebate. However, the portion of the rebate has been rejected on the ground that there is a mismatch in the Shipping Bill and From ARE-1 - It appears that the petitioner has not produced a clear copy of BRC. As far as this issue is concerned, the same is condonable and can be reexamined by the authorities. As far as the 2nd issue is concerned, ie., mismatch in the declaration in the Shipping Bill and Form ARE-1 filed, there can be co-relation with the export invoice of the petitioner. The Original Authority/The Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Trichy is suo motu impleaded as 3rd respondent to verify the records to conclude that extent of rebate that can be granted. The case remanded back to the Original Authority/3rd respondent, who has been suo motu impleaded today by this Court, to re-examine the exported documents and to sanction the rebate claims of the petitioner to the extent rebate claims have not been sanctioned - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of Revisional Authority under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Discrepancy in export documents leading to rejection of rebate claims.
Validity of rejecting rebate claim due to unclear foreign inward remittance documents.
Interpretation of export incentives and entitlement to rebate.
Review of decision-making process and procedural irregularities.
Entitlement to re-credit of the amount on exports made.
Verification of records and re-examination of exported documents for granting rebate.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Revisional Authority's order under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the rejection of rebate claims partly allowed by the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner contended that rebate, an export incentive, should not be denied based on discrepancies in export documents. The respondent rejected the rebate claims due to unclear foreign inward remittance documents, leading to the dispute.

The Court considered arguments on both sides regarding the decision-making process and procedural irregularities. It was emphasized that refund of input tax credit on exports and rebate under relevant rules are export incentives separate from duty drawback. The original authority confirmed the petitioner's exports but rejected a portion of the rebate due to discrepancies in Shipping Bill and Form ARE-1.

The Court noted that the petitioner's export was not in dispute, and the mismatch in documents could be rectified through re-examination. It directed the Original Authority to re-examine the exported documents, including a clear copy of the Bank Realization Certificate, and grant rebate claims accordingly within three months. The petitioner was instructed to provide explanations and be heard in the process.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the impugned orders, remitting the case for re-examination by the Original Authority to determine the extent of rebate to be granted based on clarified export documents. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal procedures in granting export incentives.