Um Cables Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 24 April, 2013
PNP 10/11 WP3102-24.4
facto result in the invalidation of the rebate claim. In such a case, it is open to
the exporter to demonstrate by the production of cogent evidence to the
satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority that the requirements of Rule 18
of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read together with the notification dated 6
September 2004 have been fulfilled. As we have noted, the primary
requirements which have to be established by the exporter are that the claim for
rebate relates to goods which were exported and that the goods which were
exported were of a duty paid character. We may also note at this stage that the
attention of the Court has been drawn to an order dated 23 December 2010
passed by the revisional authority in the case of the Petitioner itself by which the
non-production of the ARE-1 form was not regarded as invalidating the rebate
claim and the proceedings were remitted back to the adjudicating authority to
decide the case afresh after allowing to the Petitioner an opportunity to produce
documents to prove the export of duty paid goods in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 18 read with notification dated 6 September 2004 5. Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has also placed on the record other orders
passed by the revisional authority of the Government of India taking a similar
view6. The CESTAT has also taken the same view in its decisions in Shreeji
Colour Chem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise 7, Model
Buckets & Attachments (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 8 and
Commissioner of Central Excise v. TISCO9.