Rebate claims on export records must be examined on merits despite documentary discrepancies; remand ordered for fresh consideration.

Madras HC held that rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be finally rejected merely because of apparent discrepancies between shipping bills, ARE-1 forms and an incomplete Bank Realisation Certificate, where export of goods was otherwise undisputed. The authorities were required to examine the export invoice and connected records to determine the duty paid on exports and decide the claim on merits. The revisional orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee and passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional orders rejecting the rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 called for interference and whether the matter required reconsideration on the basis of the export documents, including the shipping bills, ARE-1 forms and Bank Realisation Certificate.

Analysis: The rebate claim arose out of export of goods and the dispute centred on alleged mismatch between the shipping bills and ARE-1 forms, together with an incomplete copy of the Bank Realisation Certificate. The export of goods itself was not in dispute. In such circumstances, the authorities were required to verify the export invoice and connected records to determine the extent of duty paid on exports and to decide the rebate claim on merits, rather than rejecting the claim finally on the basis of apparent documentary discrepancies. The proper course was to remit the matter to the original authority for fresh examination after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned revisional orders were set aside and the rebate claims were remanded for fresh consideration by the original authority, with directions to re-examine the export records and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

---