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>Revision applications challenge rejection of rebate claims due to non-compliance with ARE-2 form submission requirements.</h1> <h3>M/s Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara Versus CCE, Vadodara-I</h3> M/s Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara Versus CCE, Vadodara-I - TMI Issues:1. Rebate claim rejection based on non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-2.2. Procurement of goods not directly from the manufacturer as required for availing rebate under a specific notification.Analysis:1. Rebate Claim Rejection:- The revision applications were filed against orders-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs regarding rebate claims. The rejection of the rebate claim in both cases was primarily due to the non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-2 forms, as required by the Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the rejection, leading to the filing of revision applications by the applicant.- The applicant argued that the rejection solely based on non-submission of ARE-2 forms was incorrect. They contended that other essential documents like certified invoices, packing lists, and bank realization certificates substantiated the export and duty payment, fulfilling the conditions for the rebate claim. Additionally, they cited judicial pronouncements emphasizing that procedural lapses should not overshadow the fulfillment of substantial conditions for rebate claims.- The applicant further highlighted a Bombay High Court judgment stating that the non-submission of original and duplicate AREs should not be a sole reason for rejecting a rebate claim. The judgment differentiated between procedural requirements and substantial conditions, emphasizing that the rebate sanctioning authority should be satisfied with the fulfillment of conditions even without the ARE-2 forms.2. Procurement of Goods Issue:- In one of the cases, the rebate claim was rejected because the goods were not procured directly from the manufacturer, as mandated by the notification for availing the rebate. The applicant had obtained the goods from a firm that was neither a registered manufacturer nor a dealer with the department. The invoices showed a chain of procurement from the manufacturer to the applicant through an intermediary.- The Government noted that to benefit from the rebate under the specific notification, the goods must be procured directly from the manufacturer's premises. The delay in invoicing and lack of evidence showing direct procurement raised doubts about compliance with this essential condition. As a result, the rebate claim was deemed ineligible for approval.- The Government decision set aside one order-in-appeal for reconsideration in light of the Bombay High Court judgment regarding non-submission of ARE-2 forms. However, the other order-in-appeal was upheld, as the applicant failed to demonstrate direct procurement from the manufacturer, a vital requirement for availing the rebate.In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to procedural compliance and substantial conditions for rebate claims, emphasizing the importance of direct procurement from manufacturers for availing specific rebates under notifications. The Government decision provided clarity on the application of judicial precedents and the necessity to fulfill all conditions stipulated in notifications for successful rebate claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
