2011 (1) TMI 820 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 6-9-2004 - Applicant manufacturer of Marbles and Granite filed four rebate claims of duty paid by them on the Granite Slabs cleared from their factory premises for export through merchant exporters under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - Applicant has failed to comply with the procedural substantive condition on the identity of goods cleared from factory can not be established with those exported and therefore duty paid character of exported goods is not established - As much there is no force in the plea of the applicant that this lapse should be considered on a procedural lapse of technical nature which is condonable in term of case laws cited by applicant - Government therefore holds that non-preparation of statutory requirement of stipulated ARE-1 and not following the basic procedure of export goods cannot be treated as just a minor/technical procedural lapse for the purpose of granting rebate of duty on impugned exported goods in this case - Hence the impugned order-in- appeal is hereby upheld for being legal and proper.

Summary

Issues:
Failure to comply with the procedure for claiming rebate of duty on exports under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004.
Applicability of case laws in challenging the imposition of penalties and rejection of rebate claims.
Non-speaking order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and its impact on the decision.
The significance of following procedural requirements for claiming rebate of duty on exported goods.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision application filed by M/s. Agrawal Marbles & Industries Pvt. Ltd. against the rejection of their rebate claims for duty paid on Granite Slabs cleared for export. The Assistant Commissioner observed non-compliance with the procedure under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) for self-sealing and certification, leading to the rejection of rebate claims and imposition of penalties.

The applicant challenged the penalties and rejection of rebate claims citing various case laws to support their argument. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide further evidence to support the penalties imposed, making the order non-speaking and liable to be set aside. The applicant also argued that the failure to self-certify documents and late submission of required forms should not deny them the legitimate rebate claim.

The Government analyzed the case records and upheld the decision, emphasizing the importance of complying with the procedure for claiming rebate on exports. The Government highlighted the essential role of the ARE-1 form in establishing the duty paid nature of exported goods and the necessity of following the prescribed sealing and certification process. Non-compliance with these requirements was deemed a substantive condition, not a minor procedural lapse, justifying the rejection of rebate claims.

In conclusion, the Government rejected the revision application, affirming the decision to uphold the rejection of rebate claims. The case underscores the significance of adhering to procedural requirements for claiming rebates on exported goods and the substantive nature of such compliance in determining the legitimacy of duty claims.