TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the respondents themselves their officers and subordinates to act upon the claim for rebate filed by the petitioners on 16.06.2014 and various representations filed vide order dated 20.08.2015, 26.08.2015, 16.9.2015, 02.11.2015, 10.12.2015, 17.12.2015, 20.01.2016 and 05.02.2016; b. To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the respondent No. 2 to process the rebate claims in respect of ARE-1 as referred to at para 9 and pass appropriate orders granting the rebate claim after complying with the principles of natural justice." 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1 The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of bulk drugs and medicament falling under Chapters 29 and 31 of First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 clearing finished goods manufactured for home consumption i.e. for sale in India as well as exporting the same. 5.2 The petitioner, during the period March 2014, April 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ropriate authority to process the rebate claim. 5.7 Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, by letter dated 25.08.2015, replied that no documents are lying with his office and directed the petitioner to contact respondent No. 2. The petitioner thereafter, by letter dated 26.08.2015, again submitted before the Jurisdictional Range Office a copy of statement of Annexure-19 duly acknowledged by the Inspector of Central Excise and Customs as proof that documents were submitted to the Office of Range Superintendent. 5.8 The Range Superintendent by letter dated 26.08.2015 informed the petitioner that as per the records available with them, no such documents were lying in the office. The petitioner, thereafter, by letter dated 28.08.2015 was informed by the Jurisdictional Range Office that their office has made ample efforts to trace out the documents, however, no documents were lying in the office. The petitioner therefore, by letter dated 16.09.2015, addressed to respondent No. 2 informed the factual position regarding filing of ARE-1 under claim for rebate before the Range Superintendent and fact that such documents were not traceable by the Office of the Range Superintendent despit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t disputed filing of the documents but has shown the inability to trace out the documents and the request of the petitioner to reconstruct the rebate claim was also not considered by the respondent. 7.1 It was submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Rules, however, by mistake, the petitioner filed the requisite documents in Annexure-19 as required by Rule 19 of the Rules and therefore, the claim was not considered by the respondents. It was therefore submitted that the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the Rules and the respondents may be directed to process the claim of the petitioner by permitting the petitioner to reconstruct the relevant documents which were already submitted by the petitioner on 16.06.2014 along with Annexure-19 before the Office of the Range Superintendent, Central Excise. 7.2 In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) Apar Industries (Polymer Divsion) vs. UOI reported in 2006 (333) ELT 246 (Guj); (ii) UM Cable Ltd vs. UOI reported in 2013 (293) ELT 641 (Bom); (iii) Zandu Chemicals Ltd vs. UOI reported in 2015 (315) ELT 520 (Bom). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s germane to refer to Rules 18 and 19 which entitles the petitioner for rebate of duty under Rule 18 and the export without payment of duty under Rule 19 which read as under: "Rule 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 processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfilment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification. [Explanation.- "Export" includes goods shipped as provision or stores for use on board a ship proceeding to a foreign port or supplied to a foreign going aircraft.] Rule 19:- Export without payment of duty.- (1) Any excisable goods may be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, as may be approved by the Commissioner. (2) Any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for use in the manufacture or processing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rebate, in part or full. In case of any reduction or rejection of the claim, an opportunity shall be provided to the exporter to explain the case and a reasoned order shall be issued. 8.5 Where the individual rebate claim exceeds Rs. 5 lakh, they shall be pre-audited before these are disbursed." 14. There is no denial by the respondents that petitioner is not entitled to claim of the rebate under Rule 18 of the Rules with regard to the exports made without payment of duty. In such circumstances, in absence of any dispute with regard to entitlement of the rebate claim by the petitioner, denial of the rebate claim made by the respondent only on the ground that the petitioner has committed a mistake by submitting ARE-1 in Annexure 19 for the purpose of making claim under Rule 18 cannot be sustained more particularly, when the petitioner has claimed that it had submitted all the requisite documents along with Annexure-19 before the Range Office and the Range Office has also stated in the letter dated 28.08.2015 that ample efforts to trace out the records have been made but no such documents could be found. It is also emerging from the record that the request of the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rebate applications, though in wrong format. These rebate applications were thus made within period of one year, even applying the limitation envisaged under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Under the circumstances, without going into the question whether such limitation would apply to rebate claims at all or not, the Department is directed to examine the rebate claims of the petitioner on merits. For such purpose, revisional order and all the orders confirmed by the revisional order are set aside. The Department shall process and decide rebate claims in accordance with Rules." 16. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of UM Cable Ltd vs. Union of India (supra) in such circumstances, has observed as under: "13. A distinction between those regulatory provisions which are of a substantive character and those which are merely procedural or technical has been made in a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1. The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that a provision is contained in a statutory instruction "does not matter one way or the other". The Supreme Court held that non-compliance of a condition which is subs....