TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S : - 4. To secure rebate benefits, as contemplated under Rule 18 of the Rules, 2002, the petitioner No. 1 being a merchant-exporter, filed a claim before the office of the respondent No. 3 for an amount of Rs. 1,32,92,598/- on 29.12.2017 (the "Original Claim"). However, on the same day, the respondent No. 3, vide letter bearing reference F.No. CGST/Anjar-Bhachau/REF-REB/17-18 dated 29.12.2017 (the "Rejection Letter"), returned the application along with the accompanying documents. 5. The Rejection Letter merely mentions that the petitioner No. 1 had failed to comply with the conditions and procedures specified in Paragraph No. 3(b)(i) of Notification No. 19/2004. Being uncertain about the alleged non-compliance and the basis of rejection, the petitioner No. 1 re-submitted its claim on 26.06.2018 before the office of the respondent No. 3 (the "Re-filed Claim"). In the interregnum, the Finance Team of the petitioner No. 1 had relocated from its Mumbai office to Hyderabad. During the course of such relocation, the original and duplicate copies of the ARE-1 forms were inadvertently misplaced. 6. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 adjudicated the re-filed claim by passing an Ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmit the original documents and in fact submitted duplicates and triplicates, which is in contravention of the Paragraph 3(b)(i) of the Notification dated 06.09.2004. It is contended that the view expressed by the Appellate authority and confirmed by the Revisional authority is in direct conflict with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.06.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17481 of 2012 and allied matter. It is submitted that the respondents have not doubted the claim of rebate and the same is supported by other documents, which establish such claim. It is submitted that the competent authority, while passing the order in original has taken care of these aspects and has also dealt with the provision of Paragraph No. 3(b)(i) of the Notification, however, the Appellate Authority has reversed such findings, which run contrary to the judgment of this Court. 10. The third ground, which has been urged by learned advocate Ms. Thakore is relating to the limitation, on which the order in original has been set aside by the Appellate Authority and further confirmed in revision. She has submitted that initially an application was filed on 29.12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on two grounds; first, that the original application was filed without the requisite original documents; and second, that the subsequent application was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of one year. By placing reliance upon Paragraph 3(b)(i) of the Notification dated 06.09.2004, it is submitted that the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have rightly recorded that the petitioner No. 1 failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the said provision and hence, the same is correctly set aside sanctioning the rebate. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:- 13. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, at length. 14. At the outset, it is evident from the pleadings as well as the material on record that the respondents do not dispute the substantive claim of the petitioners for rebate. The claim has been rejected purely on technical grounds. 15. Initially, the petitioners filed the rebate application on 29.12.2017. A bare perusal of the rebate claim dated 29.12.2017 indicates that the petitioner No. 1 had produced the relevant documents, namely: the application in Form C; a copy of the annexure containing the calculation shee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 25.09.2018, recorded that the petitioner No. 1 had submitted quadruplicate copies of the relevant ARE-1 forms along with self-attested copies of invoices issued under Rule 11 of the Rules, 2002. It was further held that the goods were exported directly from the factory within six months from clearance and that the rebate claim was filed within one year from the date of entry of goods into the Andhra Pradesh Special Economic Zone at Atchutapuram (APSEZ), Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, it was categorically held that the claim was not barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Act, 1944. 20. The competent authority further observed that the duplicate copies of ARE-1 had not been received from the Customs authorities and that, as per the indemnity bond submitted by the claimant, the original and duplicate copies had been misplaced in transit. In lieu thereof, the claimant submitted quadruplicate copies along with an indemnity bond. It was also recorded that the triplicate copies of ARE-1 were received from the jurisdictional Range Superintendent, duly certified and signed, and that the Range Officer had verified the rebate claim as well as the particulars of duty payment thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls of lading etc. and from the supporting and corresponding documents is able to prove and establish that the excisable goods have in fact been exported on payment of duty from its factory / warehouses and all other conditions and limitations mentioned in clause 2 of the notification issued under Rule 18 are satisfied, exporter shall be entitled to the rebate of duty. [6.4] The aforesaid issue is also required to be viewed from another angle. It cannot be disputed that an exporter is entitled to the rebate of the duty under Rule 18 on fulfillment of the conditions and limitations mentioned in clause 2 of the notification issued under Rule 18 of the Rules. Submission of documents along with the rebate claim is falling under the head "procedure". Therefore, as such production of the original and duplicate copies of ARE1 along with the rebate claim is a procedural one. Therefore, even if some documents though required to be produced along with the rebate claim could not be produced but from other documents it can be established and proved that all the conditions and liabilities for rebate claim are satisfied, the exporter shall be entitled to the rebate of duty. There can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals) with respect to the actual export of the exported goods on payment of duty, from their factories have not been upset by the Revisional Authority." 24. Thus, the Coordinate Bench has held that merely because an exporter is unable to produce the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 along with the rebate claim, the same would not by itself be fatal, provided other contemporaneous documents such as mate's receipts, shipping bills, bills of lading, etc., are produced and from such supporting documents it stands established that the excisable goods have in fact been exported on payment of duty from the factory or warehouse. In such circumstances, the exporter would be entitled to rebate of duty. It has further been observed that there may be more than one valid reason for non-production of one or more documents prescribed under the procedural requirements. Merely because certain documents, though prescribed, are not produced, the claim cannot be rejected if, on the basis of other material on record, the exporter is able to establish compliance with the substantive conditions of export and payment of duty. The production of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 is not the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g an order thereon amounts to refusal to perform the statutory duty imposed on him to consider the application and make an order thereon in accordance with law." It was thus held that it was the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to consider the claim application and pass an order under Section 11B of the Act, 1944 and the relevant Rules. 30. In the present case, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Kachchh, Gandhidham, instead of returning the application on 29.12.2017, ought to have pointed out the specific deficiencies, thereby enabling the petitioners to rectify them. This constitutes yet another irregularity in the process adopted by the respondents. 31. Insofar as the second ground of rejection, namely limitation, is concerned, reference may be made to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.12.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7815 of 2014 in the case of Apar Industries Limited (supra), which reads as under:- "6. Thus, making of the declarations by the petitioner in format of Annexure-19 was purely oversight. In any case, neither Rule 18 nor notification of Government of India prescribe any procedure for claiming rebate and pro....