TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te copy of ARE-1 for the goods exported by them. They stated that the same were lost in transit and submitted the FIR lodged at the Police Station, Khanvel. Therefore a show cause notice dated 18.02.10 was issued to them and after due process of law, the rebate claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, vide order-in-original dated 26.03.10 for not submitting the 'original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 in terms of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Para 8.3 and 8.4 of Chapter 8 of CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruction. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, the respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside' the order of the lower adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant department has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon a CESTAT judgement in the case of M/s Model Buckets and Attachment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Belgam as reported in 2007 (217) ELT 264 (Tri. Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original, duplicate and quadruplicate copies of the ARE-1s. 4.3.3 After the above endorsement / certification on the said ARE-Is the officer returned the original and quadruplicate copies of ARE-1s to the exporter. The duplicate copy is forward to Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of the, jurisdiction where the assessee is required to file rebate. On request of the exporter the duplicate copy can be handed over to them in tamper proof sealed cover for the purpose of delivery to the concerned Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner. 4.3.4 As .per the condition No. 3(a) (xvi) the exporter has to use the quadruplicate copy for the purposes of claiming any other export incentive. The respondent is not discussing anything about the optional copy which is also certified by the, Customs officer. 4.4. At the time of presentation of claim for rebate to Central Excise the respondent is required to follow condition No. 3(b)(i) of the Notification, according to which the claim of the rebate of duty paid on excisable goods is to be lodged along with original copy of the ARE-1. 4.4.1 As per the condition 3(b)(ii) the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise shall compare the dupli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of excisable goods without payment of duty in terms of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 whereas the instant case is related with the export of excisable goods with- payment of duty and claiming rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon supporting documents like shipping bill, mate receipt, bill of lading as proof of export but the department considered original, duplicate and quadruplicate copies of ARE-1s duly certified by the Customs Officer, as it linked the chain, from the factory upto the sailing of the vessel from the port of the export. Therefore done of the above supporting documents can be relied upon as proof of export. The Commissioner peals) has erred in not considering that the conditions, limitation, procedure prescribed under the Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.09.04 ,are ,mandatory in nature and therefore the same cannot be relaxed. 5. A show, cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 to file their counter reply. They filed their written reply dated 27.06.12 and submitted tlat 5.1 There is no dispute that the goods were exported under ARE-1 N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. The applicant filed Writ Petition No.582 of 2013 against the aforesaid revision order dated 7.9.12. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.2.14 remanded this case back to original authority to decide the same in context of GOI decision in case of Garg Tex Fab Pvt. Ltd. reported as 271 ELT449(GOI). 7. In compliance of Hon'ble High Court order, the case was fixed for hearing on11.9.14. Hearing was attended by Shri Archit Aggarwal, C.A. who relied upon various case laws in favour of their contention including Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgement in case of U.M.Cables Ltd. reported as 2013 (293) ELT 641(Bom). 8. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 9. On perusal of records, Government observes that the rebate claim in question was rejected by the original adjudicating authority as the claimant has failed to submit the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 being a, mandatory document in terms of para 8.3 and 8 4 of Chapter 8 of CBEC`s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions read with provision of notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.04 as amended, is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in original revision application, cannot be entertained at this stage. 12. In this regard, Govt. further observes that rebate/drawback etc. are export-oriented schemes. A merely technical interpretation of procedures etc. is to be best avoided if the substantive fact of export having been made is not in doubt, a liberal interpretation is to be given in case of any technical lapse. In Suksha International--Vs.-UOI 1993 -(39) ELT 503 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. In the Union of India Vs. A V Narasimhatu 1983 ELT 1534 (SC), the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. Similar observation was made by the Apex Court in the Formica India Vs. Collector of Central Excise 1995 (77) ELT 51(SC) In observing that once a view is taken that-the party would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of the concerned -rule, th....