TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods manufactured and cleared for export. While scrutinizing the rebate claim, it was observed that the applicant failed to submit the original, duplicate and triplicate copies of ARE-1 as per the provision of the Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004, submission of original, duplicate, triplicate copies of ARE-1 along with the rebate claims is a mandatory requirement in the absence of original duplicate copies of ARE-1 duly endorsed by the Customs authorities in respect of the above mentioned ARE-1, it was not possible to compare the same with the triplicate copy of the said ARE-1, which was also not submitted by the applicant in spite of letters dated 7.4.11 and 29.4.11, the applicant failed to submit the required documents. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant. However, applicant neither appeared for the personal hearing nor submitted any written reply to the show cause notice. In view of the above, the original authority has rejected the rebate claim, for the reason of his submission of copies of original/duplicate ARE-1. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is virtually not possible to rebate sanctioning authority to correlate the goods cleared and goods exported. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the factual and legal position. 4.4 The applicant's case is studied in the light of Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT). It can be seen that the applicants had made all the required documents needs to be made while exporting the goods. Issue only relates to original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 which was lost. However applicants had submitted photo copy of ARE-1 which was duly certified by customs officer and which proves that goods are exported. Even para 8.3 of Chapter 8 Part-I of CBEC Manual prescribes specified documents and applicants had submitted more than the documents required by which it can be proved that goods are exported. The applicants submit that only documents namely original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 which was not submitted by them while submitting claim since they are misplaced. However, applicants had submitted a photo copy of ARE-1 which was certified by customs officers at docks. It is therefore submitted that the dispute is not on exports made or not but it is limited only on one document, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en 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 facilitate the processing of an application for rebate and to enable the authority to be duly satisfied that the two fold requirement of the goods having been exported and of the goods bearing a duty paid character is fulfilled. The procedure cannot be raised to the level of a mandatory requirement. Rule 18 itself makes a distinction between conditions and limitations on the one hand subject to which a rebate can be granted and the procedure governing the grant of a rebate on the other hand. While the conditions and limitations for the grant of rebate are mandatory, matters of procedure are directory. 13. A distinction between those regulatory provisions which are of a substantive character and those which are merely procedural or technical has been made in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 cannot be faulted. Admittedly even accordingly to the Petitioner the goods came to be exported and the vessel had sailed on 18 April 2008 even before a Let Export order was passed by the customs authorities. The primary requirement of the identity of the goods exported was therefore, in our view, not fulfilled. In such a case, it cannot be said that a fundamental requirement regarding the export of the goods and of the duty paid character of the goods was satisfied. 16. However, it is evident from the record that the second claim dated 20 March 2009 in the amount of ₹ 2.45 lacs which forms the subject matter of the first writ petition and the three claims d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to the authenticity of those documents. However, the rebate sanctioning authority shall not upon remand reject the claim on the ground of the nonproduction of the original and the duplicate copies of the ARE-1 forms, if it is otherwise satisfied that the conditions for the grant of rebate have been fulfilled. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the petitions by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the revision/ authority dated 22 May 2012 and remand the proceedings back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. The rejection of the rebate claim dated 8 April 2009 in the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
