2013 (9) TMI 996 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Non production of duplicate copy of invoice - Held that - Rebate claim of duty paid on exported goods pertaining to two Central Excise Invoice Nos. 242 and 244 both dated 18-8-2009 was disallowed since applicant failed to submit duplicate copy of the invoice. Government notes that the export of duty paid goods is not disputed by the department in this case. As per Para 8.3 of Part I of Chapter 8 of C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruction, one of the documents required to be enclosed with rebate claim is invoice issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It does not specify that only duplicate copy of invoice is to be produced as notified in the Mumbai-III Committee Trade Notice No. 2/2006, dated 22-3-2006. In this case, applicant has submitted original invoice since duplicate copy is misplaced. This is only a procedural lapse which can be condoned. The substantial benefit of rebate claim cannot be denied for mere minor procedural lapses - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rebate claim rejection due to missing duplicate copy of invoice.

Analysis:
The case involves a Revision Application filed by a company against the rejection of its rebate claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The applicant had filed a rebate claim for exported goods but was rejected for not producing a duplicate copy of the excise invoice for two out of three invoices. The applicant contended that they followed the prescribed procedure by submitting the original invoice and argued that the export of goods and payment of duty were not in dispute, hence their rebate claim should be sanctioned.

Upon review, the Government noted that while the applicant failed to provide the duplicate copy of the invoice, the export of duty paid goods was not contested by the department. The Government observed that the C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual required submission of an invoice issued under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, without specifying that only a duplicate copy should be provided. The applicant had submitted the original invoice as the duplicate was misplaced, which was considered a procedural lapse that could be condoned. The Government emphasized that the substantial benefit of the rebate claim should not be denied for minor procedural lapses, citing previous judgments supporting this view. Therefore, the rebate claim could be considered for sanction based on the original invoice if the claim was otherwise in order.

Consequently, the Government set aside the impugned order, remanding the case back to the original authority for a fresh consideration of the rebate claim in line with the law and the observations made. The applicants were to be given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing during this process. Ultimately, the revision application was disposed of accordingly.