2013 (7) TMI 332 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Government Upholds Rebate Claims Despite Procedural Errors

IN RE : JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.

IN RE : JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD. - 2012 (286) E.L.T. 455 (G.O.I.) Issues Involved:1. Rejection of rebate claims due to non-compliance with direct export from the factory or approved warehouse.2. Establishment of identity and co-relation of goods exported with goods cleared from the factory.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under relevant circulars and notifications.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Rebate Claims Due to Non-Compliance with Direct Export from Factory or Approved Warehouse:The Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Raigad, initially rejected the rebate claims on the grounds that the excisable goods were not exported directly from the factory of manufacture. The claimant had cleared the goods for home consumption and subsequently exported them from a hired godown, which was not approved under Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, noting that the goods were stored in a dealer's godown and not an approved warehouse, but the identity and duty-paid nature of the goods could still be established through other means.2. Establishment of Identity and Co-Relation of Goods Exported with Goods Cleared from the Factory:The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the identity and co-relation of the goods could be established through documentation, including ARE-1 forms certified by Central Excise officers, consignment notes, and returns filed with the Narcotics Control Bureau. The goods in question, Acetic Anhydride, are a controlled substance, and their movement is stringently regulated. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that procedural infractions should not deprive the claimant of the substantial right of rebate, especially when the Central Excise and NCB departments were kept informed at every stage.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under Relevant Circulars and Notifications:The applicant department contended that the claimant did not comply with the procedural requirements stipulated in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 294/10/97-CX., dated 30-1-1997. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the jurisdictional Superintendent had verified the duty payment and was satisfied with the identity of the goods. The Government noted that the documentary evidence provided by the claimant established the co-relation between the goods exported and those cleared from the factory. The Government also referenced the Supreme Court's stance on avoiding unduly restrictive interpretations of beneficial provisions.Conclusion:The Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, stating that the rebate claims were rightly allowed after establishing that the duty-paid goods were exported. The revision application filed by the applicant department was rejected for being devoid of merit. The judgment emphasized that procedural infractions should not negate the substantial right to rebate when the identity and duty-paid nature of the goods are adequately established.