Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 166 - HC - Central ExciseRefund/rebate of duty paid on goods exported - rejection of rebate claim on the ground of non submission of ARE-1 application - stand taken by the counsel for Revenue is that the requirement of production of original copy of ARE-1 is a mandatory requirement to establish that the goods have suffered duty at the time of removal from the factory of manufacture and further that they are actually exported - whether the requirement of submission of ARE -1 form is mandatory or mere directory? Held that:- The provisions of taxing statute are required to be strictly construed. Further where a taxing statute provides for certain exemptions or rebates subject to certain conditions, those preconditions, fulfillment of which entitles a person to rebate or exemption from taxes or duty are also mandatory. However, in appropriate cases, a play may be allowed, in so far as the procedure through which the required conditions are to be fulfilled to claim rebate/exemption. In the present case, on the face of Rule 18, which specifies precondition for grant of rebate, it should also be held to be mandatory - If the Rule itself requires the fulfillment of precondition for grant of rebate, it would amount to doing violence to the plain language of the statute to hold otherwise that fulfillment of requirements would not be a mandatory precondition. Ordinarily, the requirements of fulfillment of preconditions as stated in Rule 18 read with relevant notification, as mandated are required to be fulfilled to avail rebate. However, in exceptional cases it is open for the assessee to prove claim of rebate by leading other collateral documentary evidence in support of entitlement of rebate - where an assessee seeks to establish claim for rebate without ARE-1 document or for that matter without submission of those documents which are specified in relevant notifications he is required to clearly state as to what was that reason beyond his control due to which he could not obtain ARE-1 document. The submission of ARE-1 document was essential requirement and it cannot be condoned. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|