2005 (12) TMI 118 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Revision Application - Export - Rebate claim - Goods cleared from the factory for home consumption - HELD THAT - Govt. notes that admittedly the applicants have neither exported the impugned goods directly from the manufacturing place nor the goods have been exported within six months of its clearance in terms of Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 12 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. On delay in export of the impugned goods the applicants have submitted that for want of NOC from the Ministry of Environment and permission from D.G.F.T., New Delhi, the same were not allowed to be exported. On this contention Govt., would observe that the applicants contention appears convincing and Govt., condones the procedural/technical infractions in exercise of power given under Rule 12 of the said rule. It appears that payment of Central Excise duty and export of such goods is not in dispute. If the rebate sanctioning authority is having any doubt on payment of Central Excise duty on the impugned goods and its export out of India, the same can be got verified from the Central Excise authorities and Customs Authorities respectively. Govt., further notes that both the lower authorities have rejected the applicants' rebate claim on procedural/technical infractions. There is catena of judgments of Hon'ble Tribunal, Courts and Govt., of India as cited by the applicants to the effect that substantial benefit of rebate should not be demand on procedural infractions. Thus, Govt. sets aside both the orders passed by the lower authorities and remands the case back to the original authority to settle the applicants rebate claim as per law without raising procedural/technical infractions mentioned in the Order-in-Original and the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The Revision Application is disposed of in above terms.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claims filed by M/s. Harisons Chemicals against Order-in-Appeal No. BR(2641)/23/M-I/05.
2. Export of goods after the expiry of six months from the date of clearance.
3. Rejection of rebate claims by the adjudicating authority.
4. Appeal filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and subsequent rejection.
5. Main pleadings made by the applicant in the Revision Application.
6. Consideration of written and oral submissions, along with cited judgments/orders.
7. Condonation of procedural/technical infractions under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
8. Remand of the case back to the original authority for settlement of rebate claim without procedural/technical infractions.

Analysis:
1. The Revision Application was filed by M/s. Harisons Chemicals against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting their rebate claims. The goods were cleared for export after the expiry of six months from the date of clearance, contravening provisions of relevant notifications and circulars. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims citing procedural non-compliance and failure to apply for extension in advance.

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the rebate claims, emphasizing the mandatory nature of exporting goods within six months from clearance. The issue of goods being diverted for export after initial clearance for home consumption was noted, along with challenges in establishing the identity of goods due to the lapse of time.

3. In the Revision Application, the applicant argued that the rejection exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice and referenced several legal cases to support their contentions. They highlighted physical verification of consignments and the authority of the Maritime Commissioner to sanction rebate even in cases of incomplete notification conditions.

4. After considering submissions and judgments, the Government noted the payment of Central Excise duty and export details were not in dispute. The delay in export was attributed to procedural hurdles, which were condoned under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The case was remanded to settle the rebate claim without emphasizing procedural infractions.

5. The Government emphasized that substantial rebate benefits should not be denied based solely on procedural issues, in line with precedent judgments. The lower authorities' decisions were set aside, and the case was sent back for reevaluation without focusing on technical infractions.