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>Government rejects rebate claims for non-compliance with procedural rules. Upheld decision stresses statutory adherence.</h1> <h3>M/s Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III</h3> The government upheld the rejection of the applicant's rebate claims due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the submission of ... Rebate/Refund claim - proper documents - applicant had submitted photocopies of clearance documents viz ARE-1 and Central Excise Invoice for sanction of rebate claim - Export of goods manufactured by third party - Held that:- Government notes that original copy of ARE-I and Excise invoice among other documents are essential documents for claiming rebate. Any non-submission of documents in the manner prescribed thus imparts a character of invalidity to the rebate claim. Also in the absence of the original copies of ARE-I duly endorsed by the Customs, the export of the same duty paid goods which were cleared from the factory cannot be established which is a fundamental Requirement for Sanctioning rebate under Rule 18 read with Notification 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. It is a settled issue that benefit under a conditional notification cannot be extended in case of non-fulfilment of conditions and/or non-compliance of procedure prescribed therein. - Claim was rightly rejected. Issues Involved:1. Submission of photocopies of clearance documents for rebate claims.2. Jurisdictional authority for sanctioning rebate claims.3. Procedural compliance and conditions under Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004.4. Admissibility of secondary evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872.5. Reliance on previous judgments for procedural relaxation.Detailed Analysis:1. Submission of Photocopies of Clearance Documents for Rebate Claims:The applicant's rebate claims were rejected because they submitted photocopies of the clearance documents (ARE-1 and Central Excise Invoice) instead of the original documents. According to Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004, the original documents are mandatory for processing rebate claims. The appellate authority upheld this requirement, emphasizing that the original documents are essential to verify the export of goods and the payment of excise duty.2. Jurisdictional Authority for Sanctioning Rebate Claims:The applicant argued that their goods were exported through multiple ports, necessitating the submission of original documents to different authorities. They contended that they submitted part of the rebate claims along with original documents to the respective jurisdictional authorities and photocopies to others. The appellate authority noted that the applicant should have prepared separate invoices for different ports to comply with the procedural requirements. The government observed that there is no port-wise jurisdiction for sanctioning rebate claims, and the claims should be processed based on the original documents.3. Procedural Compliance and Conditions Under Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) Dated 06.09.2004:The government examined the statutory position and confirmed that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, requires compliance with specific conditions and procedures for rebate claims. The notification mandates the submission of original copies of ARE-1 and Excise invoices. The CBEC Basic Excise Manual also specifies the documents required for filing rebate claims, including the original ARE-1 and Excise invoice. Non-compliance with these conditions renders the rebate claim invalid.4. Admissibility of Secondary Evidence Under the Evidence Act, 1872:The government referenced the Supreme Court's decision in J. Vashoda Vs. K. Shobha, which held that photocopies are not admissible as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The absence of original documents prevents verification and comparison, which is crucial for sanctioning rebate claims. The applicant's submission of photocopies instead of original documents was thus deemed insufficient.5. Reliance on Previous Judgments for Procedural Relaxation:The applicant cited previous judgments where procedural relaxations were granted, such as Kamud Drugs Pvt Ltd and Garg Tex-O-Fab Pvt. Ltd. However, the government emphasized that the conditions specified in Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 must be strictly complied with. The Supreme Court's judgment in MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY, reiterated that concessional relief of duty depends on the fulfillment of specified conditions. The government distinguished the applicant's case from the cited judgments, noting that the original ARE-1 documents were not lost but intentionally not submitted.Conclusion:The government upheld the rejection of the applicant's rebate claims due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the submission of original documents. The revision application was rejected as devoid of merits, affirming the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory conditions and procedures for claiming rebates under the Central Excise Rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
