2012 (6) TMI 1 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Revision application - rebate claim - On scrutiny of the rebate claim it was observed that they had not submitted the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 required to be filed as para 8.3 (iii) and 8.4 of Chapter 8 of the C.B.E.C. Central Excise Manual and Supplementary Instructions and also that no documents in respect of final proof of export of goods and also showing the relevant date were submitted. On those grounds the rebate claim was rejected Held that - photocopies cannot be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of the Act and they ought not to have been received since the documents in question were admittedly photocopies, there was no possibility of the documents being compared with the originals. Government, therefore holds that non-preparation of statutory document of ARE-1 and not following the basic procedure of export goods as discussed above, cannot be treated as just a minor/technical procedural lapse for the purpose of granting rebate of duty on the materials used in the manufacture of impugned exported goods, no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal, revision application is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claim due to non-submission of essential export documents.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision application filed against the rejection of a rebate claim by M/s. Bronze Logistics (P) Ltd. The applicant had not submitted original and duplicate copies of ARE-1, as required under the Central Excise Manual. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on these grounds, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The applicant argued that the order was passed in violation of natural justice and failed to consider crucial facts. They contended that in cases of air exports, no shipped on board certificate is prepared, and relevant shipping and airways bills confirmed the export. They also claimed that certified copies of ARE-1 were misplaced during a search and seizure operation.

The applicant cited legal precedents to support their claim that rebate cannot be denied for technical discrepancies unless the export of goods or payment of duty is disputed. They also highlighted the necessary conditions for rebate sanction as per the CBEC Supplementary Instructions.

During the hearings, the applicant reiterated their grounds, while no representation was made on behalf of the department. The Government carefully reviewed the case records and observed that the rejection was primarily due to the non-submission of ARE-1 documents.

The Government analyzed the statutory requirements of the ARE-1 form and noted that its submission is essential for export claims. The absence of the original ARE-1 and non-compliance with the prescribed export procedures raised doubts about the actual export of goods. The Government emphasized the importance of following such procedures to prevent fraudulent claims and cited legal judgments supporting the mandatory nature of such requirements.

Consequently, the Government found no merit in the revision application, upholding the impugned order-in-appeal. The application was rejected, and the order was upheld, emphasizing the significance of complying with statutory export documentation and procedures to validate rebate claims.