2016 (7) TMI 352 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rejection of rebate/ refund claim - discrepancies in export/excise documents - the part rebate claims of ₹ 261381/- was rejected on ground that there is huge variation of weight between AREs-1 and Air Way Bills and as such, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the goods under the said AREs1 have been exported. - Held that - Government notes that neither before original authority nor before Commissioner (Appeals), the applicant could give any valid reason for such vast difference of weight. As, such, the orders of lower authorities which has duly allowed substantial portion of rebate and only part claim was rejected on above said ground, is just and proper - Revision application rejected - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rebate claim rejection based on weight variation in export documents.

Analysis:
1. Background: The Revision Application was filed against an Order-In-Appeal by M/S Xomox Sanmar Ltd. regarding a rebate claim for industrial valves & spares under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2. Initial Rebate Claim: The applicant filed a rebate claim for &8377; 24,42,270, out of which &8377; 15,79,699 was sanctioned, and &8377; 8,62,571 was rejected due to discrepancies in export/excise documents.

3. Appeals Process: The Commissioner (Appeals) directed a fresh decision on the rejected amount after principles of natural justice were not followed in the initial rejection. The lower authority then sanctioned &8377; 6,01,190 and rejected &8377; 2,61,381 under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act and Rules.

4. Grounds for Revision Application: The Revision Application was filed, contesting the rejection on the grounds of weight variation in export documents and procedural lapses.

5. Government Review: After reviewing submissions and case records, the Government noted weight discrepancies between ARE-Is and Airway Bills. While rebate was allowed for 5 ARE-Is with marginal weight differences, it was rejected for 3 ARE-Is due to significant variations.

6. Decision Justification: The rejection was upheld as the applicant failed to provide valid reasons for the substantial weight differences in the 3 ARE-Is. The lower authorities' decisions were considered just and proper, leading to the rejection of the Revision Application.

7. Final Verdict: The Revision Application was rejected for lacking merit, and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld by the Government. The rejection of the part rebate claim based on weight variation was deemed justified.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the appeals process, grounds for the Revision Application, government review, decision justification, and the final verdict, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.