2020 (3) TMI 371 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate of duty - failure to self seal the consignment of export - Present Revision Application has been filed by applicant mainly on the ground that the applicant missed out the self-sealing of the goods as prescribed under Notification No. 19/2004, dated 6-9-2004 and the goods were exported to Bangladesh on 5-8-2012 wherein the officer concerned has given the cross border certificate in the prescribed format of the said notification and they had received the payment remittance against the said export - HELD THAT - It is evident that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is sought to be revised. Under Rule 18, the essential condition for granting the rebate is that the goods are exported and duty has been paid on such export goods. It is not in dispute that the respondent has exported the goods on payment of duty and filed claim for rebate of duty with jurisdictional CE authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) has contended that the respondent had not followed the procedure as prescribed under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as the vehicle used in procuring the goods and the vehicle that carried the goods to Bangladesh border were different and the goods were neither sealed by the Central Excise Officer nor was it self-sealed by the applicant which makes the export of the same goods doubtful. The Government is of the view that this is a procedural lapse on the part of the respondent. The fact that the customs officer at Petrapole LCS has given a cross border certificate and remittance has also been received against the said export is undisputed. Hence Government allows the rebate of ₹ 63,036/- to the applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim rejection by Commissioner (Appeals)
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Notification No. 19/2004
3. Judicial interpretation of procedural compliance
4. Decision on revision application

Analysis:
1. The revision application was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection of the rebate claim by the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise. The applicant contended that the goods were exported to Bangladesh on 5-8-2012, but the rebate claim was rejected due to the lack of self-sealing of the goods as required by Notification No. 19/2004.

2. The key issue revolved around the procedural compliance under Notification No. 19/2004, dated 6-9-2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that the goods were not sealed by the Central Excise Officer or self-sealed by the applicant, raising doubts about the export. However, the applicant argued that the customs officer at Petrapole LCS provided a cross border certificate for the export, and remittance was received, indicating the legitimacy of the export.

3. The Government referred to judicial precedents to support its decision. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Zandu Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, it was emphasized that procedural requirements can be substantially complied with and should not be considered mandatory. Additionally, the case of Agio Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was cited, where minor procedural infractions did not warrant denial of rebate if the substantial conditions of Rule 18 were met.

4. After examining the revision application and considering the arguments presented, the Government concluded that the rejection of the rebate claim was a procedural lapse rather than a substantive issue. Given the undisputed receipt of remittance and the cross border certificate, the Government allowed the rebate of ?63,036 to the applicant, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and granting the revision application.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the procedural, legal, and judicial aspects considered in the judgment, leading to the final decision in favor of the applicant regarding the rebate claim.