2016 (7) TMI 431 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Claim of rebate/refund - Procedure of A.R.E.-1 followed instead of A.R.E-2 as contended by the department - exported the goods on payment of duty - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.0912004 - Department found that, goods were exported by availing benefit under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and Notification No, 43/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 as certified by them at Sr. No. 3(b) & (c) of the ARE-I. - According to the department, Under the Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004, it is mandatory to clear the goods for export in form ARE-2 and file the rebate claims with the jurisdictional Assistant / Deputy Commissioner. It is also, mandatory to clear goods for export under Bond / Letter of undertaking under Notification Nor. 43/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.062001. Held that - There is no independent evidences on record to show that the applicant have exported the goods without payment of duty under ARE-2 or under Bond. Under such circumstances, Government finds force in contention of applicant that they have by mistake ticked in ARE-I form declaration and they have not availed benefit of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 0609.2004 and Notification 43/01-CE(NT) dated 26.062001. In this case, there is no dispute regarding export of duty paid goods. Simply ticking a wrong declaration in ARE-I form cannot be a basis for rejecting the substantial benefit of rebate claim. Under such circumstances, the rebate claims cannot be rejected for procedural lapses of wrong ticking. In catena of judgments, the Government of India has held that benefit of rebate claim cannot be denied for minor procedural infraction when substantial compliance of provisions of notification and rules is made by claimant. However since it is a matter of fact which requires verification in view of rival claims, therefore, the case is remanded back to the original authority to verify the claim of the applicant that they have not availed benefit of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.092004 and Notification 43/01-CE (NT) dated 2606.2001 and thereafter subject to the satisfaction of the - Decided partly in favor of assessee by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT)
- Export of goods under specific notifications
- Assessment and certification process for duty payment
- Procedural lapses in claiming rebate
- Judicial precedents and orders relied upon by the applicant

Analysis:
1. Rebate Claim under Rule 18: The applicant, M/S. Mahavir Synthesis Pvt. Ltd., exported goods and filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT). The original authority sanctioned the rebate claim, which was challenged by the department on the grounds of specific notifications related to export procedures.

2. Export under Specific Notifications: The department contended that the goods were exported by availing benefits under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) and Notification No. 43/2001-CE(NT) and that certain procedural requirements were not met. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the department's appeal, leading to the revision application by the applicant before the Central Government.

3. Assessment and Certification Process: The applicant argued that the assessment and duty payment certification were done by the department, not by them, and that any changes should be made by the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner. They emphasized the correct procedure for export under specific notifications and the role of jurisdictional officers in certification.

4. Procedural Lapses in Claiming Rebate: The applicant claimed that they mistakenly ticked the declaration for availing benefits of specific notifications in the export documents but actually exported the goods under a different notification, resulting in procedural lapses. The Government observed that the exported goods were duty paid and that minor procedural errors should not lead to the rejection of substantial rebate claims.

5. Judicial Precedents and Orders: The applicant relied on various judicial precedents and orders to support their arguments regarding the correct interpretation of notifications and the treatment of procedural errors in claiming rebates. The Government, after considering the submissions and case records, remanded the case back to the original authority for verification and a fresh decision.

In conclusion, the Central Government disposed of the revision application by setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and remanding the case for further verification to ensure the correct application of specific notifications and procedural compliance in claiming the rebate.