TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the "ACCE") vide applications, received in the office of ACCE on 15.02.2005. The ACCE while processing aforesaid claims found that petitioner has not complied with the procedure prescribed in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E.(N.T.) dated 06.09.2004 issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2002") and hence issued show cause notice to adduce evidence in support of claim, else his claim may be rejected under Section 11(B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1944") read with Rule 18 of Rules, 2002. 4. The petitioner admitted non-compliance of said procedure but contended that it was due to ignorance of said procedure on his part and since the goods have actually been exported, hence the procedural lapse on his part be condoned and claim for rebate be allowed. 5. The ACCE, however, rejected claim vide order dated 20.04.2007, where against, petitioner preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Noida, who allowed the same on technical grounds and remanded matter to ACCE vide order dated 29.11.2007 (issued on 05.12.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 is liable to be set aside. 8. On the contrary, Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, contended that procedure for filing ARE-I is mandatory since its basic purpose is to avoid any mischievous or bogus claim by an alleged exporter. Once petitioner has admitted his lapse, i.e., contravention of requirement of filing ARE-I, as prescribed in notification dated 06.09.2004, it cannot be said that respondent no. 1 has committed any illegality in allowing revisions and setting aside appellate order, holding that lapse with regard to non-filing of ARE-I, as per procedure prescribed in notification, is mandatory and its non-compliance is not condonable. 9. The short question up for consideration is, "whether aforesaid procedure is mandatory or not". 10. It is not in dispute that notification dated 06.09.2004 has been issued with reference to Rule 18 of Rules, 2002. It reads as under: "18. Rebate of duty.--Where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factory of manufacture or warehouse, the triplicate copy of application shall be sent by Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse, who shall, after verification, forward triplicate copy in the manner specified in sub-paragraph (vii). 17. Para (3)(a)(xi) provides, where the exporter desires self-sealing and self-certification for removal of goods from the factory or warehouse or any approved premises, the owner, the working partner, the Managing Director or the Company Secretary, of the manufacturing unit of the goods or the owner of warehouse or a person duly authorized by such owner, working partner or the Board of Directors of such Company, as the case may be, shall certify all the copies of the application that the goods have been sealed in his presence, and shall send original and duplicate copies of the application alongwith goods at the place of export, and shall send triplicate and quadruplicate copies of application to the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over the factory or warehouse, within twenty four hours of removal of the goods. 18. Para (3)(a)(xii) says that in case of self sealing, the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual of Supplementary Instructions, for accepting proof of export on the basis of collateral documentary evidences if original and duplicate copies of ARE-I are lost. But in case of exports on payment of duty under rebate claim in terms of Rule 18 of Rules, 2002, there is no such provision under relevant Chapter 8 of Central Board of Excise and Customs Manual of Supplementary Instructions. 21. In other words, from Chapter 8 read with procedure in the notification and the Rules, it is clear that the competent authority has chosen not to relax the condition of submission of original and duplicate ARE-I alongwith rebate claim in any exigency and that is why, no such provision as is available in Chapter 7 read with Rule 19 of Rules, 2002 has been made. 22. It is not in dispute that the procedure laid down with regard to filing of ARE-I before export of goods has not been followed in the present case by petitioner. The petitioner, however, claim that it should be treated a mere technical error so as not to affect substantially his rebate claim while respondents case is that it is mandatory procedure whereupon the entire rebate claim shall be founded. 23. From a bare reading of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & others 2004 (6) SCC 440. 28. In Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory & others 2005 (13) SCC 477, it was held : "It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning." 29. In State of Jharkhand & others Vs. Ambay Cements & another 2005 (1) SCC 368 in para 26 of the judgment, the Court held : "It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way." 30. A Division Bench of this Court [in which I was also a member with Hon'ble S.R. Alam, J., (as His Lordship then was)] in Daya Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(2) ESC 1220 has observed: "A modification, amendment etc., therefore, is permissible by exercising the power in the like manner and ....