2013 (11) TMI 380 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim Non-submission of original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 r.w Notification No. 19/2004 - The applicant exported Aluminum Bottles and filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Held that - In the absence of original/duplicate copy of ARE-1 duly endorsed by customs, the export of same duty paid goods which were cleared on ARE-1 form from factory of manufacture, cannot be established which is fundamental requirement for sanctioning the rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004. This has never been the policy of the Government to allow unintended benefit - distinction between required forms and other declarations of compulsory nature and/or simple technical nature is to be judiciously done - When non-compliance of said requirement leads to any specific/odd consequences then it would be difficult to hold that requirement as non-mandatory - As such there is no force in the plea of the applicant that this lapse should be considered on a procedural lapse of technical nature which is condonable in term of case laws cited by applicant. In J. Yashoda v. Shobha Rani 2007 (4) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA it was held that the 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 - non-submission of statutory documents i.e. ARE-1 original and duplicate copy duly endorsed by customs and not following the basic procedure of export goods, cannot be treated as just a minor/technical procedural lapse for the purpose of granting rebate of duty - rebate claim is not admissible if the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 is not submitted along with rebate claim there was no infirmity in the order Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of rebate claim due to non-submission of original and duplicate ARE-1 forms.
2. Whether other documentary evidence can substitute for the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms.
3. Applicability of previous judgments and statutory provisions to the current case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of rebate claim due to non-submission of original and duplicate ARE-1 forms:
The applicant, engaged in the manufacture of Aluminum Bottles/Containers, exported the goods and filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The claim was accompanied by various documents but lacked the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1. The original authority issued a show cause notice and subsequently rejected the rebate claim on this ground. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the applicant to file a revision application.

2. Whether other documentary evidence can substitute for the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms:
The applicant argued that the ARE-1 is not the sole proof of export and that other documents like invoices, Bill of Lading, and Shipping Bill should suffice. They cited several judgments to support their claim that procedural lapses should not penalize genuine exporters. However, the government noted that the statutory provisions under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and the C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions explicitly require the submission of original and duplicate ARE-1 forms for rebate claims. The absence of these forms means the rebate sanctioning authority cannot verify the correctness of the claim, making their submission indispensable.

3. Applicability of previous judgments and statutory provisions to the current case:
The applicant relied on several case laws where collateral documentary evidence was accepted in the absence of ARE-1 forms. However, these cases pertained to exports under bond without payment of duty under Rule 19 of CER, 2002, where such collateral evidence is permissible. The current case involves exports on payment of duty under rebate claims under Rule 18 of CER, 2002, where such leniency is not allowed. The government emphasized that the submission of ARE-1 forms is a statutory requirement and non-compliance cannot be considered a minor procedural lapse. The government also referenced previous orders where rebate claims were denied for similar reasons, reinforcing the mandatory nature of this requirement.

Conclusion:
The government found no merit in the applicant's arguments and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, rejecting the revision application. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the non-substitutability of essential documents like the ARE-1 forms in rebate claims.