TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal and duplicate copies of the ARE-1s, endorsed by the customs officer, had not been submitted with the rebate claim in a sealed cover. It was also observed that the sailing date as per mate receipt was 7-11-2005, whereas on the shipping bill, it was mentioned at 8-11-2005. 2.2 Accordingly, a Deficiency-cum-Show Cause Notice was issued to the claimant under F. No. V/15/Reb/Zandu Chemicals/RGD/2006 dated 24-11-2006. The claimant had attended the personal hearing, wherein it was submitted that the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 was lost by them and that they had submitted the indemnity bond and the copy of the FIR alongwith the claim. 2.3 The Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Raigad vide the Order-in-Original No. 1247/07-08/AC(R) RAIGAD dated 3-6-2008 held that after due confirmation it was established that the sailing date was 8-11-2005 and not 7-11-2005 and that the refund claim was hence not time-barred. The adjudicating authority also observed that the original copies of the ARE 1s were lost and the claimant had submitted that a complaint was filed with the Dadar Police Station. The claimant had also filed an indemnity bond in lieu of the above documen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim of rebate is required to submit the photo copies of (i) Export Promotion copy of shipping bill and (ii) Bill of Lading along with original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 (in original) in a sealed cover and invoice copy. Thus, the condition specified by clear emphasis on submission of duplicate copy of ARE-1 in original and not the photocopies. If a claimant is granted rebate claim on the basis of the photocopies of these documents, it would open up possibility of the claimant filing claim both with the jurisdictional Commissionerate as well as with the 'Maritime Commissionerate'. Further, accepting the proof of export, in case of loss of documents, in case of goods exported under bond, Para 13.7 of Chapter 7 of the CBEC's Central Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions prescribed the procedure as under : "13.7 In case of any loss of document, the Divisional Officer or the bond accepting authority may get the matter verified from the Customs authorities at the place of export or may call for the collateral evidences such as remittance certificate. Mate's receipt etc. to satisfy himself that the goods have actually been exported." However, no parallel provisions h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2010 and made following submissions : 5.1 The respondents respectfully submit that it is erroneous to submit on the part of the Assistant Commissioner that duty paid nature of the goods can be established only from original copies of ARE-1. As a matter of fact the duty paid nature of the goods is established from the Central Excise invoice and not from the ARE-1 copies. It is not in dispute that the Respondents had submitted Central Excise invoice in original in support of their rebate claim, therefore, the duty paid nature of the export goods stand duly established. The respondents also submit that ARE-1 copies are required for establishing the fact that the goods have been duly exported. It is submitted that the fact that the goods have been exported is not in dispute and the same was not even disputed by the Assistant Commissioner at any point of time. Therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected. 5.2 It is also submitted that removal of the goods for export without payment of duty under Bond/UT-1 and removal of the goods on payment of duty under claim for rebate of duty, are essentially the same, i.e. revenue neutral and both implement avowed prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertificate, etc. submitted by the respondent, which evidences duly established (1) fact of duty payment on the export goods; and (2) the fact of export of duty paid goods. The Assistant Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal based holding that based on other evidences submitted by the respondents, duty paid nature and the fact of the export has been established, and that the rebate has not been ordered to be granted on xerox copies of the evidences, as erroneously assumed in the application. 5.6 In the light of the legal and factual position as explained hereinbefore, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is legal, proper and correct and the same deserves to be upheld and the present application deserves to be rejected in to. 6. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 3-2-2011 and 27-7-2011. Shri Nitin N., Consultant attended hearing on 3-2-2011 on behalf of the respondents, who reiterated the written submissions made in their counter reply dated 23-7-2010. Nobody appeared for hearing on behalf of the applicant-Commissioner on any of these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebate claim is to be filed. The Customs officer will make endorsement in Part-B of ARE-1 regarding export of goods. The original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 which contain the Customs certification regarding export of goods, are the valid proof of export of goods which were cleared from factory on payment of duty. In the absence of main document ARE-1 and without following the procedure described above, it cannot be established that same goods which were cleared from factory were actually exported. Since original ARE-1 is not produced, the duty paid character of exported goods cannot be established. 9.2 Government observes that the provisions of sanction of claim for rebate mentioned in Para 8 of Chapter 8 of the CBEC Central Excise Manual on Supplementary Instruction are as under :- "8.1 The rebate claim can be sanctioned by any of the following officers of Central Excise :- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of production of export goods or the warehouse; or Maritime Commissioner. 8.2 It shall be essential for the exporter to indicate on the A.R.E. 1 at the time of removal of export goods the office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate claim is an essential requirement. That is why there is no provision for doing away with this requirement in case of goods exported under claim of rebate. 10. From above, Government is of the opinion that nature of above requirement is a statutory condition. The submission of application for removal of export goods in ARE-1 form is must because such leniencies lead to possible fraud of claiming an alternatively available benefit which may lead to additional/double benefits. This has never been the policy of the Government and it is in this spirit of this background that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sharif-ud-Din. Abdul Gani - AIR 1980 S.C. 303 and 2003 (156) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.) has observed that distinction between required forms and other eclarations of compulsory nature and/or simple technical nature is to be judiciously done. When non-compliance of said requirement leads to any specific/odd consequences then it would be difficult to hold that requirement as non-mandatory. As such there is no force in the plea of the applicant that this lapse should be considered on a procedural lapse of technical nature which is condonable in term of case laws cited by applicant. T....