9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1806 - HC - Central ExciseRebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - requirement to submit the proof of export with Jurisdictional Range Office in Form Annexure-19 which was filed on 16.06.2014 by the petitioner - It is the case of the petitioner that an error was committed while filing Annexure-19 containing copy of ARE-I with all supporting documents under claim for rebate before the Jurisdictional Range Office - HELD THAT - As per Notification No. 19 of 2004 rebate of duty on export of goods are governed by the procedure prescribed therein. Whereas Notification No. 42 prescribes the procedure for export of excisable goods under Bond. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted the Form ARE-1 for rebate claim under Rule 18 along with ARE-1 for the export under Bond of all excisable goods under Rule 19 in Annexure-19. There is no denial by the respondents that petitioner is not entitled to claim of the rebate under Rule 18 of the Rules with regard to the exports made without payment of duty. In such circumstances in absence of any dispute with regard to entitlement of the rebate claim by the petitioner denial of the rebate claim made by the respondent only on the ground that the petitioner has committed a mistake by submitting ARE-1 in Annexure 19 for the purpose of making claim under Rule 18 cannot be sustained more particularly when the petitioner has claimed that it had submitted all the requisite documents along with Annexure-19 before the Range Office and the Range Office has also stated in the letter dated 28.08.2015 that ample efforts to trace out the records have been made but no such documents could be found. There is no denial to the facts stated by the petitioner in the letter dated 20.08.2015 that the petitioner had submitted the relevant documents along with Annexure-19 and therefore there was a mistake committed by the petitioner by submitting the documents which were required to be filed separately before the respondent No. 2 and not before the Range Superintendent. This Court in case of Apar Industries (Polymer Division) Vs. Union of India 2015 (12) TMI 1255 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT in such circumstances has held that making of the declarations by the petitioner in format of Annexure-19 was purely oversight. In any case neither Rule 18 nor notification of Government of India prescribe any procedure for claiming rebate and provide for any specific format for making such rebate applications. The Department therefore should have treated the original applications /declarations of the petitioner as rebate claims. Whatever defect could have been asked to be cured. When the petitioner re-presented such rebate applications in correct form backed by necessary documents the same should have been seen as a continuous attempt on part of the petitioner to seek rebate. Thus seen it would relate back to the original filing of the rebate applications though in wrong format. These rebate applications were thus made within period of one year even applying the limitation envisaged under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Conclusion - It cannot be said that the petitioner has not filed rebate claim though submitted ARE-1 along with requisite documents for the purpose of rebate claim under Rule 18 mistakenly in Annexure-19 on 16.06.2014 within the prescribed period of limitation for preferring such rebate claim. The petitioner is therefore entitled to the rebate claim for the exports made by it under Rule 18 of the Rules. Respondents are directed to process the rebate claim of the petitioner within a period of Twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order - Petition allowed.
Issues Presented and Considered
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for exports made during March 2014 to May 2015, despite having mistakenly filed the requisite documents under Annexure-19 prescribed for Rule 19 claims before the Jurisdictional Range Office instead of the appropriate authority. 2. Whether the petitioner's rebate claim can be considered and processed despite the inability of the Range Office to trace the original documents submitted along with Annexure-19. 3. Whether the claim for rebate is barred by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering the delay in filing the claim with the appropriate authority. 4. Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the rebate claim on procedural grounds, including non-submission of documents before the proper authority and the failure to follow prescribed procedures. 5. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to reconstruct the rebate claim and submit duplicate documents for processing of the rebate claim. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Entitlement to Rebate under Rule 18 despite Mistaken Filing under Rule 19 Procedure The legal framework involves Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 18 provides for rebate of duty paid on excisable goods exported, subject to conditions and procedures specified by notifications. Rule 19 allows export of excisable goods without payment of duty under bond or Letter of Undertaking (LUT), again subject to prescribed conditions and procedures. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs, exported goods under Rule 18 rebate claims but mistakenly filed the documents under Annexure-19, which is prescribed for export without payment of duty under Rule 19. The petitioner submitted the ARE-1 forms and supporting documents on 16.06.2014 before the Jurisdictional Range Office, but the claim was not processed. The Court referred to the decision in Apar Industries (Polymer Division) vs. Union of India, where it was held that the submission of declarations in Annexure-19 format was an oversight and that neither Rule 18 nor the relevant notifications prescribe a specific format for rebate claims. The Department should have treated the original submissions as rebate claims and allowed the petitioner to cure any defects. The Court emphasized that such rebate claims relate back to the original filing, making them timely within the prescribed limitation period. Applying this precedent, the Court held that the petitioner's entitlement to rebate under Rule 18 is not negated by the mistaken filing under Rule 19 procedure, especially since the petitioner submitted all requisite documents along with Annexure-19. Issue 2: Processing of Rebate Claim despite Loss of Original Documents The petitioner's claim was delayed because the Range Office was unable to trace the original documents submitted with Annexure-19 despite acknowledging receipt. The petitioner requested reconstruction of the rebate claim by submitting copies of the ARE-1 and other documents, but the respondent authority rejected this request relying on procedural rules and limitation provisions. The Court examined CBEC instructions prescribing the procedure for sanction of rebate claims, which require submission of original ARE-1, invoices, shipping bills, and other documents. The Court noted that the Range Office admitted making ample efforts to locate the documents but failed. Relying on the decision in Zandu Chemicals Ltd vs. Union of India, the Court observed that loss of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 after export does not disentitle the claimant if other vital materials such as shipping bills are available to prove export. The Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to reconstruct the rebate claim by submitting copies of relevant documents to enable processing. Issue 3: Limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act Section 11B mandates that rebate claims must be filed within one year from the date of export. The respondents contended that the petitioner's claim was time-barred as it was filed after more than a year. The Court, however, following the Apar Industries judgment, held that the initial submission of documents on 16.06.2014, albeit in incorrect format, constitutes a valid claim within the limitation period. The subsequent attempts to rectify the procedural mistake and reconstruct the claim should be treated as continuous efforts to seek rebate, relating back to the original filing date. Thus, the limitation period was not breached, and the claim is maintainable. Issue 4: Justification of Rejection on Procedural Grounds The respondents rejected the claim on grounds that the petitioner did not follow the prescribed procedure, did not submit documents to the appropriate authority, and failed to produce acknowledgment of filing as per usual practice. The Court distinguished between substantive and procedural requirements, citing UM Cable Ltd vs. Union of India, which held that non-compliance with procedural or technical conditions should not invalidate claims if substantive conditions are fulfilled. The Court emphasized that the entitlement to rebate under Rule 18 is substantive and not negated by procedural lapses. Since the petitioner's entitlement to rebate was undisputed and the procedural lapse was due to an oversight, the rejection solely on procedural grounds was unsustainable. Issue 5: Permission to Reconstruct Rebate Claim The petitioner sought permission to reconstruct the rebate claim by submitting copies of the lost documents. The respondents initially rejected this request. The Court, relying on precedents and the facts that the Range Office acknowledged receipt but lost the documents, allowed the petitioner to submit copies and reconstruct the claim. The Court directed the respondents to process the reconstructed claim within twelve weeks. The Court clarified that no interest would be payable on the rebate amount due to the delay caused by the petitioner's procedural mistake. Significant Holdings "The denial of the rebate claim made by the respondent only on the ground that the petitioner has committed a mistake by submitting ARE-1 in Annexure 19 for the purpose of making claim under Rule 18 cannot be sustained more particularly, when the petitioner has claimed that it had submitted all the requisite documents along with Annexure-19 before the Range Office and the Range Office has also stated in the letter dated 28.08.2015 that ample efforts to trace out the records have been made but no such documents could be found." "Making of the declarations by the petitioner in format of Annexure-19 was purely oversight. In any case, neither Rule 18 nor notification of Government of India prescribe any procedure for claiming rebate and provide for any specific format for making such rebate applications. The Department, therefore, should have treated the original applications /declarations of the petitioner as rebate claims. Whatever defect, could have been asked to be cured." "The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some other may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve." "In view of this authoritative pronouncement ... the order passed by the Revisional authority is unsustainable. It is manifestly illegal and erroneous. It is also vitiated by a non-application of mind to the vital materials, namely, the shipping bills and which contain the endorsement necessary for recording a finding that the goods were indeed exported by the petitioners." "It cannot be said that the petitioner has not filed rebate claim though submitted ARE-1 along with requisite documents for the purpose of rebate claim under Rule 18 mistakenly in Annexure-19 on 16.06.2014 within the prescribed period of limitation for preferring such rebate claim. The petitioner is therefore, entitled to the rebate claim for the exports made by it under Rule 18 of the Rules." "Respondents are directed to process the rebate claim of the petitioner within a period of Twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest on the amount of rebate claim as such rebate claim could not be processed by the respondent due to the mistake committed by the petitioner while making such claim before the different authorities which was different then the prescribed authority."
|
