2016 (7) TMI 655 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate / refund claim - applicant exported the goods procured from the manufacturer and filed rebate claim - original authority rejected the rebate claims filed by the applicant on the ground that the declaration given at Sr.No.3(a)(b) & (c) is incomplete. - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed findings with regard to factual aspect of each AREs-1 and observed that there has been mismatch in details given in AREs-1 and Shipping Bill with regard to quantum of duty/quantity of goods. Such detailed factual findings have not been controverted in grounds of Revision Application by means of any factual submission, duly supported by any relevant documentary evidences. Under such circumstances, the conclusion of appellate authority, based on such incontrovertible factual observation required to be acceded to. - Revision application dismissed - Decided against the applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of rebate claims due to incomplete declaration in AREs-1.
2. Grounds for filing revision application before Central Government.
3. Consideration of factual aspects and findings by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The central issue in this judgment revolves around the rejection of rebate claims by the applicant M/S USV Ltd. due to incomplete declarations in AREs-1. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) both upheld the rejection based on incomplete declarations at Sr. No.3(a)(b) & (c) of the AREs-1. The Commissioner (Appeals) specifically highlighted discrepancies in the details provided in the AREs-1 and Shipping Bill regarding the quantity of goods and duty paid. The appellate authority's findings were deemed factual and uncontroverted, leading to the rejection of the rebate claims.

2. The applicant filed a revision application before the Central Government under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing various grounds for appeal. These grounds included challenges to the original order's lack of reasons for disallowing specific rebate claims, procedural mistakes in the denial of rebate claims, and the failure to provide an opportunity to rectify mistakes. The applicant also referenced a judgment by a Joint Secretary in a related case to support their argument that procedural infractions should not deny export-related benefits.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) meticulously analyzed the factual aspects of each AREs-1 submitted by the applicant and found discrepancies in the declarations and quantities provided. Despite the detailed findings and observations made by the appellate authority, the revision application failed to provide any factual submissions or relevant documentary evidence to counter these observations. Consequently, the Central Government upheld the impugned Order-in-Appeal, concluding that there was no infirmity in the decision and rejecting the revision application for lacking merit.

In summary, the judgment primarily addresses the rejection of rebate claims due to incomplete declarations in AREs-1, the grounds for the revision application before the Central Government, and the detailed factual analysis conducted by the Commissioner (Appeals) that led to the rejection of the appeal. The decision highlights the importance of accurate documentation and compliance with procedural requirements in claiming rebates under the Central Excise Act.