2016 (7) TMI 229 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim of duty paid on exported goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - applicant failed to follow procedure of self sealing as provided in para 3(a)(xi) of the Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and failed to submit triplicate and quadruplicate ARE-I to range Superintendent vide Order-in-Original No.22/10-11/ACC Rebate/Raigad dated 07.0412010. Held that - if goods are cleared from a factory for export under claim for rebate it has to be under the cover of an ARE-I duly certified for purpose of identity of goods either by the Superintendent/lnspector or the person from the factory as the case may be. This duly verified/certified ARE-I is then certified by the Customs after due verification/examination that goods have been exported. Government notes that the verification on ARE-I prior to clearance from factory and thereafter by the Customs at the time of export helps to establish that the goods which were cleared from the factory are the same which are exported and without having followed the procedure as described in the Notification it cannot be established that goods which were cleared from factory were the ones actually exported or goods exported cannot be correlated with goods cleared from factory. Government notes that it is an undisputed fact on record that in the present case the goods have been cleared by the applicant from the factory of the manufacturer on invoices only between 19.04.2007 to 23.04.2007 and dispatched to JNPT Container Terminal for stuffing. They had prepared the ARE-I only on 24.04.2007 subsequent to clearance from the factory after the complete consignment was received at JNPT. Not following the basic procedure of export cannot be treated as a minor procedural lapse for the purpose of availing benefit of rebate of duty on impugned export goods. As such, there is no merit in the plea of the applicant that the lapse on their part be considered as procedural laps of a technical nature which may be condoned. - Rebate claim denied. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claim on exported goods due to failure to follow procedure of self-sealing and submission of required documents within stipulated time frame.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed against the rejection of a rebate claim by M/S Universal Impex for duty paid on exported goods. The claim was rejected for failing to follow the procedure of self-sealing and not submitting triplicate and quadruplicate ARE-I to the Range Superintendent within the specified time frame. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed, leading to the filing of a revision application before the Central Government under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The applicant argued that the refusal to sign the ARE-I by the Excise Officials should not be a ground for denying the rebate claim, citing precedents like Kumud Drug Pvt Ltd and Caspro Export. They emphasized that the goods had indeed been exported, supported by documents such as Shipping Bills and Central Excise Invoices. The applicant also highlighted technical lapses in following the prescribed procedure.

The Government reviewed the relevant case records, submissions, and previous orders. It noted that the applicant did not comply with the requirements of Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) regarding self-sealing and certification of exported goods. The failure to submit a duly certified ARE-I from the factory and follow the prescribed procedure raised doubts about the correlation between goods cleared from the factory and those exported.

The Government emphasized that when claiming a rebate under specific notifications, strict compliance with the attached conditions is essential. Ignorance of the law was deemed insufficient justification for not following the required procedures. Citing the judgment in Mihir Textiles Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, it was reiterated that conditions for concessional relief must be met for granting benefits.

Ultimately, the Government found no merit in the applicant's arguments and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The revision application was rejected as devoid of merit, concluding the judgment.