Government denies rebate claim for duty-paid goods due to non-compliance with procedures. Appeal dismissed.

The government upheld the decision to reject the rebate claim due to non-compliance with ARE-1 procedures, non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 endorsed by customs, and failure to provide Central Excise Invoices. As a result, the export of duty-paid goods could not be established, leading to the inadmissibility of the rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The appellate authority's orders were affirmed, and the revision application was dismissed for lacking merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-submission of original duty paying invoices.
2. Non-compliance with ARE-1 procedure.
3. Rejection of refund claim due to procedural deficiencies.
4. Validity of Chartered Accountant's certificate as proof of duty payment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-submission of original duty paying invoices:
The applicants, engaged in manufacturing petroleum products, filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,93,801/- on the grounds that they supplied ATF to international airlines, which should be treated as exports and thus eligible for a refund. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim because the applicants did not submit the original duty paying invoices issued to Khapri Depot. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that without these invoices, it was difficult to ascertain the assessable value and the amount of refund.

2. Non-compliance with ARE-1 procedure:
The original authority rejected the refund claim, noting that the applicants failed to remove the goods under cover of ARE-1 as required by Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The applicants did not prepare or submit the ARE-1 form, which is essential for clearing excisable goods for export. The government observed that compliance with the ARE-1 procedure is mandatory to avail of the rebate under Rule 18 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The absence of duly certified copies of ARE-1 meant that the rebate sanctioning authority could not verify the correctness of the rebate claim.

3. Rejection of refund claim due to procedural deficiencies:
The applicants argued that the refund should not be denied due to procedural deficiencies as long as the goods were indeed exported. They submitted invoices for stock transfer from Khapri Depot to Nagpur AFS and a Chartered Accountant's statement showing the correlation of the product removed from Gujarat Refinery to supplies to foreign-going aircraft. However, the government noted that the procedure stipulated in the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) was not followed, and the necessary documents to establish the export of duty-paid goods were not submitted.

4. Validity of Chartered Accountant's certificate as proof of duty payment:
The applicants contended that the Chartered Accountant's certificate should suffice to prove the duty-paid nature of the goods. However, the government rejected this argument, stating that the Central Excise Invoice issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, is required to be submitted with the rebate claim. The applicants failed to submit these invoices, and thus, the duty-paid character of the goods could not be established.

Conclusion:
The government concluded that due to the non-compliance with ARE-1 procedures, the non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 endorsed by customs, and the non-submission of Central Excise Invoices issued by the manufacturer, the export of duty-paid goods could not be established. Therefore, the rebate claim was not admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The orders of the appellate authority were upheld, and the revision application was rejected for lack of merit.

---