TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facturer/supplier i.e. M/s. BPCL, Mahul, Mumbai. Therefore the applicants stated to have filed for refund of duty paid on above bonded supplies which were rejected by the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 11-12-2009, 15-12-2009 and 4-1-2010 for Rs. 47,22,974/-, Rs. 1,00,54,446/- and Rs. 88,66,121/-, respectively. In the first case, the applicants had supplied LSHF/HS Diesel to Indian Navy from the duty paid stock and claimed refund on the ground that supplies to Indian Navy were exempt from payment of duty. The duty in this case had been paid by M/s. BPCL Mahul. In the second and third cases the applicants had supplied LSHF/HS Diesel to foreign going vessels and the refund claims were filed subsequently. The goods were exported under letter of undertaking under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the claims for acceptance of proof of export were also filed with Assistant Commissioner Division F-II, Mumbai-I. Later on the applicants filed refund claims with the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Chembur-I Division on the ground that the goods were duty paid and had been supplied to them by M/s. BPCL, Mahul. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 6-9-2004 in respect of duty paid goods exported which are identifiable and corelatable. The Circular in no manner suggests that only goods such as two wheelers having special chassis number or engine number are entitled for such relaxation. In their case duty paid nature and exports are not disputed for being properly co-related and Para 6 of the Circular exempts technical deviations. 4.5 Refund cannot be denied for not having established the identity of duty paid LSHF/HSD received from M/s. BPCL and later exported as per RG-I and on FIFO principle. 4.6 It is pertinent to note that in a case, pertaining to the refund claims for supplies of duty paid product to Navy ex-Jamnagar, the Ahmedabad CESTAT, at Para 7 of the Order No. A/851-852/WZB/AHD, dated 30-04-2008 [2008 (229) E.L.T. 100 (Tribunal)], has clearly held that "....As regards the correlation, we are not convinced of the arguments putforth by the Department. So long as the goods have been received on payment of duty by IOCL and supplied without payment of duty to the Navy, there is no need to carry out unit by unit correlation. C.B.E. & C. has also clarified in this regard...." 4.7 Refund cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted. During the personal hearing Smt. Ragini Ajagaonkar, Deputy Manager Finance and Smt. Maushumi S. Khatu, Assistant Manager Finance pointed out that it was detected after export that the product exported was a duty paid item and hence, the procedural lapse of submission of the undertaking and following Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, occurred. If it is a simple procedural lapse and the duty paying character of the product is established, I am of the view, placing reliance on the ratio of the judgment contained in the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal quoted by the assessee that such a lapse can be ignored. 5.2 Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 lays down in detail the procedures to be followed for the purpose of exporting excisable goods without payment of duty. After the proof of export is obtained from the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority, entries are made in the running bond account for the purpose of maintaining an account in respect of amounts of duty foregone. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee has ever applied for cancellation of their letter of undertaking. Without doing so, they have filed an application in Form R claiming refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or clearance of goods for export is ARE-1 form. The relevant ARE-1 neither specify the manufacturer as BPCL nor declares the exports under rebate claim in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rather, the exports are declared under UT-I without payment of duty from Bonded supplies. There is no certification by Central Excise officers in Part A of ARE-1 form. The exports are effected under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for which proof of export were also submitted in the prescribed form. These factual recorded details cannot be brushed aside simply on the claim of applicant that he has exported duty paid goods for which he claims to be entitled for rebate claim. The claim of applicant that they have exported goods out of duty paid stock received from BPCL is not found supported by valid documentary evidence. Therefore lower authorities have rightly held that goods exported cannot be treated as duty paid goods. 9. Government further observes that the exports under [Rule] 18 or 19 are under two different schemes. Rule 18 governs the export of duty paid goods under rebate claim while Rule 19 governs the export of goods without payment of duty under Bond/UT....