TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... call for personal hearing cum show cause notice was issued for non submission of said central excise invoices. Government notes that when the applicant submitted proof of submission of impugned excise invoices in form of acknowledgement of rebate sanctioning office, it can not be categorically held against applicant that they have not submitted the same and rebate claims cannot be held inadmissible on this count only. As such, proof of evidence weigh in favour of the applicant and rebate claims can't be held inadmissible alleging non- submission of excise invoices. Even if copy of excise invoices are not submitted, the export of duty paid goods may be ascertained on the basis of other collateral documents. In this case there is no dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s merchant-exporter and has filed two rebate claims under Rule 18 of the said Rules read with Notification No. 19/204)4 CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 for the duty paid on good exported. The rebate sanctioning authority vide the impugned order rejected the rebate claim for the following reasons: a). The applicants had furnished the certification /4 declaration in Para 3(b) of ARE-1's to the effect of availment of Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.04 and as such it was mandatory to clear the goods for export in Form ARE-2 Accordingly, the rebate claim should have been filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/DC in charge of the premises approved for manufacturing and not with Maritime Commissioner. b) The applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid submission of the applicant is duly supported bye the facts recorded by the original authority in his order dated 13.05.2013 itself. In the first page of Order-in-Original, the original authority has recorded the description of the various documents filed by the applicants in support of the rebate claim made under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the item No. 4, thereof is the Central Excise invoices under which the goods exported were removed by the manufacturer. Applicants submits that all the categorical averments in the order in original is directly contrary to the finding recorded later by the original authority as well as the lower appellate authority in the impugned order. Accordingly, both the orders of the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence to show that the impugned excise invoice were already submitted, along with rebate claim. 6. Government has carefully gone through the records of the case including order-in-original, order-in-appeal and grounds as made in revision application. 7. Government observes that the applicant's rebate claim were held inadmissible for the reasons of non submission of impugned excise invoices. Commissioner(A) decided the case in favor of the department. Now, the applicant has filed this revision Application on the ground mentioned n Para (4) above. 8. Government observes that .the applicant has contended that they have submitted original copies of impugned excise invoices along with rebate claim. During personal hearing also th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uplicate copies of ARE-1 forms if it is otherwise satisfied that conditions for grant of rebate have been fulfilled Applying the ratio of afore said judgement Government finds that even if copy of excise invoices are not submitted, the export of duty paid goods may be ascertained on the basis of other collateral documents. In this case there is no dispute of payment of duty per se, which is also evident from copies of impugned AREs-1 where in such duty particulars are clearly given. Further there is no dispute that such duty paid goods have not actually been exported. Under such circumstances, when substantial condition of export of duty paid goods stands established, the rebate claims cant be held inadmissible considering a situation th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpreting statute similar view was also propounded by the Apex Court in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner 1991 (51) ELT 437 (SC). In fact, as regards rebate specifically, it is now a established law that the procedural infraction of Notifications, circulars, etc. are to be condoned if exports have really taken place, and the law is settled now that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Procedure has been prescribed to facilitate verification of substantive requirement. The core aspect or fundamental requirement for rebate is manufacture and subsequent export. As long as this requirement is met other procedural deviations can be condoned. This view of condoning procedural infractions in fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
