Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 380 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate claim – Non-submission of original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 r.w Notification No. 19/2004 - The applicant exported Aluminum Bottles and filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Held that:- In the absence of original/duplicate copy of ARE-1 duly endorsed by customs, the export of same duty paid goods which were cleared on ARE-1 form from factory of manufacture, cannot be established which is fundamental requirement for sanctioning the rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004. This has never been the policy of the Government to allow unintended benefit - distinction between required forms and other declarations of compulsory nature and/or simple technical nature is to be judiciously done - When non-compliance of said requirement leads to any specific/odd consequences then it would be difficult to hold that requirement as non-mandatory - As such 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. In J. Yashoda v. Shobha Rani [2007 (4) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] it was held that the photocopies cannot be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of the Act and they ought not to have been received since the documents in question were admittedly photocopies, there was no possibility of the documents being compared with the originals - non-submission of statutory documents i.e. ARE-1 original and duplicate copy duly endorsed by customs 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 - rebate claim is not admissible if the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 is not submitted along with rebate claim – there was no infirmity in the order – Decided against assessee.
|