2013 (5) TMI 794 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claims - original and duplicate copies of AREs-1 had not been produced by the respondent - Held that - Assessee has submitted reconstructed copies of ARE-1 signed by the custom authorities and also submitted certificate from concerned range officers of excise to the effect that duty have been paid in respect of goods cleared for export under impugned ARE-1s. These certificates were not submitted before this authority during first round of revisionary proceedings which have now been obtained by the respondent on direction of Hon ble Bombay High Court. The certificates issued by Central Excise range officers clearly mention relevant ARE-1 No. Excise Invoice No. amount of duty paid etc. From perusal of sample copies of the endorsement of custom authority on reconstructed copy it is found that there is clear mention of ARE-1 No. and their relevant shipping bill Nos. - original authority directed to verify the authenticity and veracity of reconstructed copies of ARE-1 and sanction the rebate claim in accordance with law if the said documents and the rebate claims are found in order. The respondents are directed to submit all the said documents before adjudicating authority. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims due to missing original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms.

Detailed Analysis:
The revision application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner challenging the rejection of rebate claims amounting to Rs. 57,87,876 due to missing original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claims as the duty paid nature of the goods could not be ascertained without the required documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and allowed the appeals, leading to the revision application being filed.

The grounds for the revision application included non-adherence to the prescribed procedures for rebate claims under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The Commissioner argued that without the original documents, the duty paid nature of the goods cannot be established, as per the provisions of the notification. Concerns were raised about the potential loss of revenue if rebates were granted based on reconstructed documents, as it could lead to misuse and multiple claims.

The Commissioner also cited legal precedents where photocopies of documents were deemed insufficient as evidence, emphasizing the need for original documents to prevent misuse. The Supreme Court's stance on the admissibility of photocopies as secondary evidence was highlighted to support the argument against relying on reconstructed documents for rebate claims.

The Government noted a previous decision where the Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, but the High Court later remanded the case for fresh consideration based on newly obtained documents from Excise Authorities. The reconstructed copies of ARE-1 forms, endorsed by Customs and Central Excise authorities, were submitted along with certificates confirming duty payment for export goods.

In light of the unique circumstances of the case and the directives from the High Court, the Government directed the original authority to verify the authenticity of the reconstructed documents and consider them for rebate claims if found in order. The respondents were instructed to submit all relevant documents for further assessment, leading to the disposal of the revision application with these terms.