9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Cables and Optical Fiber Cables used in telecommunication falling under tariff heading 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Petitioner has a factory at Silvassa which is registered under the Central Excise Rules with the Central Excise Division- III, Silvassa falling under the Vapi Commissionerate. The Petitioner sells goods both in the domestic market and for export. The dispute in the present case relates to claims for rebate filed by the Petitioner under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Rule 18 provides as follows :- "RULE 18. Rebate of duty. - Where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification." 4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 18, the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance has issued a notification dated 6 September 2004 bearing notification 19/2004-C.E.(N.T.). The Notification specifies the conditions and limitations on the one hand and the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods and to certify on the copies of the application that the goods have been duly exported, citing the shipping bill number, date and other particulars of export. The exporter has to lodge a claim of rebate of duty paid on all excisable goods along with an original copy of the application to the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture, warehouse or, as the case may be, the Maritime Commissioner. The rebate sanctioning officer is required to compare the duplicate copy of the application received from the officer of customs with the original copy received from the exporter and with the triplicate copy received from the Central Excise Officer and if he is satisfied that the claim is in order, he has to sanction the rebate either in whole or in part. 6. Paragraph 8 of Chapter 8 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions 2005 deals with sanctioning of a claim for rebate by the Central Excise Officer and is as follows : "8. Sanction of claim for rebate by Central Excise 8.1 The rebate claim can be sanctioned by any of the following officers of Central Excise :- Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the submission of the original and duplicate of the ARE-1 forms duly endorsed by the customs authorities establishes the export of duty paid goods and is therefore an essential requirement. The revisional authority held that whereas under Chapter 7 of the Manual which relates to export under bond without the payment of duty provision has been made for accepting proof of export on the basis of collateral documentary evidence if the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 are lost, in the case of export on the payment of duty under a rebate claim, no such provision is contained in Chapter 8 of the CBEC's Manual of Supplementary Instructions. Since the CBEC has according to the revisional authority not relaxed the condition of submitting the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms, along with the rebate claim in any exigency, the requirement could not be dispensed with and in the absence of the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 forms, the rebate claims could not be sanctioned. 8. The contention of the Petitioner was that the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 forms were lost by their CHA and the Petitioner had lodged an FIR. The submission of the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), the goods were loaded by the Shipping Line on the vessel and the vessel sailed on 18 April 2008 whereas the Let Export Order was made by the customs authorities on 19 April 2008. In these circumstances, it is apparent that there was no due verification by the customs authorities of the fact that the goods had been exported or in regard to their identity and hence, the rejection of the rebate claim is lawful and valid for an additional reason pertaining to the aforesaid consignment. The rival contentions now fall for consideration. 10. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 empowers the Central Government by a notification to grant a rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods, where the goods are exported. The rebate under Rule 18 shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and the fulfillment of such procedure as may be specified in the notification. Rule 18, it must be noted at the outset, makes a clear distinction between matters which govern the conditions or limitations subject to which a rebate can be granted on the one hand and the fulfillment of such procedure as may be prescribed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the CBEC specifies the documents which are required for filing a claim for rebate. Among them is the original copy of the ARE-1, the invoice and self attested copies of the shipping bill and the bill of lading. Paragraph 8.4 specifies that the rebate sanctioning authority has to satisfy himself in respect of essentially two requirements. The first requirement is that the goods cleared for export under the relevant ARE-1 applications were actually exported as evident from the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 form duly certified by customs. The second is that the goods are of a duty paid character as certified on the triplicate copy of the ARE-1 form received from the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. The object and purpose underlying the procedure which has been specified is to enable the authority to duly satisfy itself that the rebate of central excise duty is sought to be claimed in respect of goods which were exported and that the goods which were exported were of a duty paid character. 12. The procedure which has been laid down in the notification dated 6 September 2004 and in CBEC's Manual of Supplementary Instructions of 2005 is to facili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamined. Part B contains a certification by the officer of the customs of the shipment of the goods under his supervision. 15. In the situation in the two writ petitions, the rebate claims that were filed by the Petitioner would have to be duly bifurcated. As noted earlier the first writ petition Writ Petition 3102 of 2013. relates to two claims dated 20 March 2009 and 8 April 2009 in the total value of Rs.12.54 lacs. In respect of the second of those claims dated 8 April 2009, of a value of Rs.10.08 lacs, the Petitioner has averred that the goods were loaded by the Shipping Line on the vessel and the vessel sailed on 18 April 2008 whereas the Let Export Order was passed by the customs authorities on 19 April 2008. The Petitioner has stated that in view of this position the customs authorities withheld the endorsement of the ARE-1 forms and the issuance of the export promotion copy of the shipping bill paragraphs 8(g) and 8(h) of the petition. We find merit in the contention of counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that in these circumstances, the rejection of the rebate claim dated 8 April 2009 by the adjudicating authority and which was confirmed in appeal and in revision c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er orders passed by the revisional authority of the Government of India taking a similar view Garg Tex-O-Fab Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 449 Hebenkraft - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 979. The CESTAT has also taken the same view in its decisions in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2009 (233) E.L.T. 367. Model Buckets & Attachments (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (217) E.L.T. 264. and Commissioner of Central Excise v. TISCO 2003 (156) E.L.T. 777. 17. We may only note that in the present case the Petitioner has inter alia relied upon the bills of lading, banker's certificate in regard to the inward remittance of export proceeds and the certification by the customs authorities on the triplicate copy of the ARE-1 form. We direct that the rebate sanctioning authority shall reconsider the claim for rebate on the basis of the documents which have been submitted by the Petitioner. We clarify that we have not dealt with the authenticity or the sufficiency of the documents on the basis of which the claim for rebate has been filed and the adjudicating authority shall reconsider the claim on the basis of those documents after satisfying itself in regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
