Procedural lapse in rebate claim could not by itself defeat admissibility; claim remanded for fresh examination

Rebate under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied solely for failure to give prior intimation, obtain prior approval, or file the input-output ratio before export where duty-paid inputs were used and later supplies showed compliance and verification. The Government noted that invoices, ARE-I forms, transport details, raw material particulars, and a Chartered Engineer's certificate were relevant to test admissibility, and the authorities were required to examine the claim with due care. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on the rebate claim after considering the documents and affording an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of duty under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) could be denied solely for non-compliance with prior intimation and prior approval procedure, and whether the matter required fresh adjudication on admissibility.

Analysis: The claim related to supply of pre-fabricated steel building to an SEZ unit and there was no dispute about use of duty paid inputs. The denial rested only on failure to give prior intimation, obtain prior permission and furnish input-output ratio before export. The Government held that these procedural requirements were important, but on the facts of the first export, followed by subsequent compliance and verification of input-output ratio in later supplies, the benefit could not be denied merely on that ground. The available invoices, ARE-I forms, transport details, raw material particulars and Chartered Engineer's certificate were relevant for examining admissibility, and the authorities could verify the claim with due care and diligence.

Conclusion: The rebate claim was not finally rejected on the procedural lapse alone, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after considering the documents and giving the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

---