2014 (7) TMI 735 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate / refund of duty - there was no endorsement of the subject ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009 on the Shipping Bill by the Customs Authority of the Port of Export - thus, it was found that the petitioner had not exported the goods - Held that - petitioner did not submit the original copy of the ARE-1 duly certified by the Customs Authority and Invoice (duplicate copy of transport, in original). It was also found that the even Division Office did not receive duplicate of the said ARE-1 in original duly authorised by Customs Authority of the Port of Export - Even in the triplicate of ARE-1, there was no endorsement certified by the Customs Authority with respect to Shipping Bill No.7074421. When all the authorities below have concurrently found that the petitioner had not exported the goods of ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009 under Shipping Bill No.7074421 for which they claimed rebate, we are of the opinion that as such no error has been committed by any of the authorities below. - there is no reason to interfere with the same in exercise of the power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. - petition rejected - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioner filed a rebate claim for duty paid goods exported to Germany, but the claim was rejected due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The main issue is whether the petitioner exported the goods as claimed and if the rejection of the rebate claim was justified.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the rejection of the rebate claim by the revisonal authority. The petitioner's claim was based on the export of goods to Germany under ARE-1 No.48 dated 10/2/2009. However, discrepancies were found in the documents submitted, including the absence of the original certified ARE-1 copy and the lack of endorsement on the Shipping Bill for the claimed goods.

2. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the rebate claim, leading to the petitioner filing a revision application. The revisional authority upheld the previous decisions, prompting the petitioner to file a Special Civil Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

3. The petitioner argued that despite procedural lapses, if it could be proven that the goods were indeed exported, the rebate should be granted. Citing precedents, the petitioner contended that the lack of the original ARE-1 should not be a bar to claiming the rebate.

4. The department, represented by Mr. Kogje, opposed the petition, emphasizing that the authorities had correctly determined that the petitioner failed to prove the export of goods under the claimed ARE-1 No.48. The Shipping Bill and other documents did not support the petitioner's claim, leading to the rejection of the rebate claim.

5. After hearing both parties, the Court noted the discrepancies in the documents submitted by the petitioner and the lack of endorsement on the Shipping Bill for the claimed goods. The Court observed that all lower authorities had unanimously concluded that the petitioner did not export the goods as claimed, justifying the rejection of the rebate claim. The Court declined to interfere with the factual findings of the authorities and dismissed the petition.

6. The Court held that based on the evidence and findings of the lower authorities, there was no reason to overturn the rejection of the rebate claim. The decisions cited by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable to the present case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, ruling in favor of the department.