Export rebate on excise duty cannot be denied for missing ARE-1 endorsement where goods were verified and exported.

Rebate of central excise duty on exported goods could not be denied merely because the jurisdictional Superintendent did not endorse the triplicate ARE-1, since the circular required him only to verify duty-payment particulars from the invoices and certify them on the ARE-1 copies. The Court held that, where goods are exported otherwise than directly from the factory, identity and duty-paid character are verified at the pre-export stage by the officer examining the goods at the storage or export point, and there was no requirement to re-establish co-relation at the factory level. It also found no statutory basis to insist on batch numbers or similar identifiers on cartons or documents, so the rebate claims were admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of central excise duty on exported goods could be denied solely because the triplicate copy of ARE-1 was not endorsed by the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the manufacturer's factory, and whether the absence of batch number or other distinguishing particulars on the cartons and documents made the rebate claim inadmissible.

Analysis: The rebate claim arose under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and the procedure in Board's Circular No. 294/10/97-CX. The Court held that, where goods are exported otherwise than directly from the factory, the verification of the identity of the goods and their duty-paid character is required at the pre-export stage by the officer examining the goods at the storage/export point. The Superintendent having jurisdiction over the manufacturer's factory is required to verify duty payment particulars from the relevant invoices and certify the same on the triplicate and quadruplicate copies of ARE-1, but the circular does not cast upon him the burden of re-establishing co-relation between the exported goods and the factory-cleared goods. The Court further held that there was no statutory requirement shown to obligate the manufacturer or exporter to mark the goods with batch numbers or similar identifiers, and the exporter could not be penalised for the absence of such particulars when the goods had already been examined, found in original factory packed condition, and exported under departmental supervision.

Conclusion: The non-endorsement of the triplicate ARE-1 by the jurisdictional Superintendent was not a substantive ground to reject the rebate, and the assessee was entitled to the rebate claims.

---