2020 (1) TMI 666 - AT - Central Excise

Rebate of Central Excise duty - Department alleged that the goods exported were not the same goods mentioned in the duty paying documents on which rebate for Central Excise duty was claimed - HELD THAT - The appellant have filed documents relating to 31 rebate claims and further they have filed documents for 22 rebate claims. Thus out of the initial claim for 84 rebate claims they have submitted 53 rebate claims as documents for 53 rebate claims have been filed. The appellant claims that he has taken necessary permission for factory stuffing. Officers of Central Excise have examined the duty paid nature of goods after verifying the GP-1s and therefore, rejection at a later date is illegal an void. The claim of the appellant and documents need to be verified in terms of the Public Notice, Board Circular etc. existing during the relevant date. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to consider the documents now filed and that may be filed by the appellant during course of denovo proceedings.

Issues:
1. Allegation of incorrect rebate claims for Central Excise duty on exported goods.
2. Dispute regarding duty paying documents and goods exported.
3. Imposition of penalties on the appellant and authorized representative.
4. Appeal dismissed for failure to make mandatory pre-deposit.
5. Verification of documents and claims for rebate.

Issue 1: Allegation of incorrect rebate claims for Central Excise duty on exported goods
The case involved a Partnership firm engaged in exporting textile fabrics, claiming rebate of Central Excise duty on exported goods. The department alleged that the goods exported did not match the duty paying documents on which the rebate was claimed. A show cause notice was issued, resulting in confirmation of duty and imposition of penalties on the appellant and the authorized representative. The issue focused on 84 rebate claims in question.

Issue 2: Dispute regarding duty paying documents and goods exported
The appellant argued that the goods mentioned in the documents were exported, duty paying documents were attached to rebate claims, appropriate duties were paid, and necessary permissions were obtained for identification and packing. The appellant emphasized compliance with CBCE circular and denied allegations of procuring goods from third parties. The department contended that out of 84 rebate claims, 51 involved goods purchased through third parties, leading to discrepancies.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalties on the appellant and authorized representative
The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed duty, imposed penalties on the appellant, and the authorized representative. The appellant challenged the penalties, arguing against their imposition. The department reiterated the findings of the Order in Original (OIO) regarding the rebate claims and discrepancies in exports.

Issue 4: Appeal dismissed for failure to make mandatory pre-deposit
The initial appeal was dismissed for not fulfilling the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. Subsequent litigations, including approaching the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, led to the restoration of the appeal for reconsideration.

Issue 5: Verification of documents and claims for rebate
After considering submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted documents for 53 out of the 84 rebate claims. The Tribunal directed a remand to the adjudicating authority for verification of documents and claims. The case was to be reconsidered based on the newly submitted documents within 12 weeks of the order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further verification and consideration.

← Previous Next →