TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes substantial compliance for Central Excise duty rebate claims</h1> <h3>Zandu Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> Zandu Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union of India - 2015 (315) E.L.T. 520 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Rejection of rebate claim due to non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1.2. Legality of the revisional authority's decision to reverse the appellate authority's order.3. Procedural versus mandatory requirements in rebate claims.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Rebate Claim Due to Non-Submission of Original and Duplicate Copies of ARE-1:The petitioner company engaged in the manufacture and export of chemicals filed a rebate claim for Central Excise duty paid on exported goods. The claim was rejected because the petitioner failed to submit the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1, which were lost/misplaced. Despite providing collateral documents as proof of export, the rebate claim was denied. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the condition of submitting original and duplicate ARE-1 copies was directory, not mandatory, and upheld the claim based on other supporting documents like the shipping bill, which contained necessary endorsements.2. Legality of the Revisional Authority's Decision to Reverse the Appellate Authority's Order:The revisional authority reversed the appellate authority's decision, insisting on the procedural requirement of submitting original and duplicate ARE-1 copies. The High Court found that the revisional authority's scope is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or material irregularities. The revisional authority should not interfere with factual findings supported by sufficient materials unless they are perverse or legally erroneous. The High Court noted that the revisional authority focused solely on procedural requirements without considering substantial compliance and other proof of export.3. Procedural Versus Mandatory Requirements in Rebate Claims:The High Court emphasized that procedural requirements, such as submitting original and duplicate ARE-1 forms, are directory and capable of substantial compliance. The court referred to a Division Bench judgment in UM Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, which distinguished between mandatory conditions and procedural requirements. The judgment clarified that while conditions and limitations for granting rebates are mandatory, procedural aspects are directory. The court held that substantial compliance with procedural requirements, supported by other evidence of export, suffices for rebate claims.Conclusion:The High Court quashed the revisional authority's order, reinstating the appellate authority's decision. The court ruled that procedural requirements should not overshadow substantial compliance and other proof of export. The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner's rebate claim was granted based on supporting documents, despite the absence of original and duplicate ARE-1 forms.
TaxTMI 