Rebate claim verification under excise rules is permissible at the jurisdictional level and does not justify revisional interference.

Rebate claims under Rule 191A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be lodged with the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction over the factory where the exported goods were manufactured. The rule also required particulars of the licensed factory or factories from which the excisable goods were brought, and that information was already available to the Department. Verification of duty-payment documents at the jurisdictional or consignor level was therefore permissible, and the objection that such verification would burden the Department was rejected. No legal infirmity was found in the appellate direction for verification, so revisional interference was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing verification of the rebate claim under Rule 191A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and whether there was any legal infirmity warranting interference in revision.

Analysis: Rule 191A(9) required rebate claims to be lodged with the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction over the factory where the exported goods were manufactured. Rule 191A(2)(d) required information about the licensed factory or factories from which the excisable goods were to be brought, and such information was available with the Department. The objection that verification at the consignor's end would burden the Department was not accepted, as the jurisdictional officer was the proper authority to hold the relevant records and conduct verification.

Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disclosed no legal infirmity and no interference was warranted; the revision application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The rebate claim issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the departmental challenge to the appellate direction for verification did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the rules place the rebate claim within the jurisdiction of the officer concerned and require the relevant factory information to be furnished, departmental verification of duty-payment documents at the jurisdictional level is permissible and does not furnish a ground for revisional interference absent legal infirmity.

---