SPL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated July 30, 2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner; the order of the Commissioner dated April 20, 2009 and the order of the Central Government dated June 29, 2011, whereby the claim of the petitioner for rebate of duty paid on goods exported under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short, "the Rules") was declined. The petitioner is the manufacturer of knitted fabrics and engaged in the export of knitted handloom products after indigenously procuring the raw material on payment of duty. Rule 18 of the Rules contemplate that where the goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate on duty paid on such excisable goods or duty-paid material used in the processing of such goods subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of procedure as may be specified in the notification. In exercise of the powers conferred under rule 18 of the Rules, the Central Government has published the notification dated June 26, 2001, subsequently substituted by Notification No. 19/2004-CE (N.T.), dated September 6, 2004, which contemplates the procedure for presentation of claims for rebate to the Central Excise Officer. The relevant clause 3(b) reads as under:

(2.) "ARE-1" Form is part of the notification, which is required to be filled before the presentation of claim for rebate to the Central Excise Officer. Part "A" of such ARE-1 Form requires certification by the Central Excise Officer whereas Part "B" requires certification by the officer of the customs to certify that the consignment has been shipped under his supervision under shipping bill.

(3.) The petitioner presented the claim for rebate without attaching original or carbon copy of Form ARE-1, but attached documents which included copies of shipping bills; copies of bill of lading, copies of bank realisation certificate; copies of invoices issued under rule 11; copy of central credit account evidencing payment of duty and the photocopies of ARE-1 Form. Such claim was declined by the Assistant Commissioner for the reason that the petitioner has not satisfied the condition of rebate inasmuch as the original and the carbon copy of ARE-1 has not been produced. Such order was affirmed in appeal as well as in revision by the Central Government.