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>Rebate Claim Process: Procedural Requirements, Evidence Compliance, and Government Decision</h1> <h3>M/s Cummins Generator Technologies Ltd., Pune Versus CCE, Pune-III</h3> The case involved issues regarding the non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms for a rebate claim. The original authority rejected ... Denial of rebate claim - non-submission of original/duplicate copies of AREsd-1 - Held that:- Following decision of UM Cables Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others [2013 (5) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1.2. Rejection of rebate claim by the original authority.3. Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection.4. Revision application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.5. Applicability of procedural versus substantive requirements in rebate claims.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1The applicant, a manufacturer of generator/alternators, filed a rebate claim for Rs. 142,415/- under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944, for duty paid on exported goods. The claim was scrutinized, and it was observed that the applicant failed to submit the original, duplicate, and triplicate copies of ARE-1 as mandated by Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004. Despite reminders, the applicant did not provide the necessary documents, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice.Issue 2: Rejection of rebate claim by the original authorityThe original authority rejected the rebate claim due to the non-submission of the original and duplicate ARE-1 copies. The applicant neither appeared for the personal hearing nor submitted a written reply to the show cause notice.Issue 3: Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejectionThe applicant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the original order, rejecting the appeal on technical grounds, stating that the applicant had not responded to the show cause notice despite submitting evidence of having sent a letter and reply.Issue 4: Revision application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944The applicant filed a revision application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering their submissions and the factual and legal position. The applicant contended that all required documents, except the original and duplicate ARE-1 copies, were submitted, and the documents provided were co-related and certified by customs officers.Issue 5: Applicability of procedural versus substantive requirements in rebate claimsThe Government referred to a recent judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of UM Cables vs. UOI, which distinguished between substantive and procedural requirements. The Court held that while conditions and limitations for granting a rebate are mandatory, procedural requirements are directory. The non-production of ARE-1 forms should not invalidate a rebate claim if the exporter can demonstrate compliance with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 through other cogent evidence.Conclusion:The Government set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and remanded the case back to the original authority for fresh consideration in light of the Bombay High Court judgment. The original authority is directed to reconsider the claim based on the documents submitted by the applicant and provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
