IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural lapses in filing rebate claims do not invalidate the claim if substantive conditions, such as export and receipt of foreign exchange, are satisfied.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. By consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final hearing since the pleadings are completed.

2. On 5th September 2024, we had disposed Respondents’ preliminary objection on jurisdiction. We held that this Court has jurisdiction. The petitions were, thereafter, listed on 6th September 2024 for consideration on merits.

3. These two petitions are disposed of by a common order since the issues involved are identical. However, for the sake of disposing of the petitions, we narrate the facts of Writ Petition No. 2837 of 2021.

4. Petitioner is a Bus manufacturer. The buses are sold in the domestic market as well as exported. Petitioner purchases chassis from its sister concern, Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. (Volvo India). The said chassis has been subjected to excise duty at the time of removal of the same from the factory of Volvo India and same has been recovered from Petitioner along with the sale price. Petitioner, thereafter, manufactures the buses by using the said chassis and clears the same for home consumption by availing Exemption Notification No. 6/2006 on fulfillment of conditions specified therein. Petitioner also uses the said chassis for manufacturing buses to be exported without payment of duty.

5. During the period under consideration, i.e., 21st December 2010 to 28th February 2011, petitioner exported Volvo buses to Bangladesh without payment of duty. On 8th December 2011, petitioner made an application for rebate of Rs. 53,65,198/- being basic excise duty, education cess and higher education cess which according to petitioner it was entitled to by virtue of Notification No.21/2004 dated 6th September 2004. The said notification allows rebate of the duty paid on excisable goods used in the manufacture of goods exported to countries other than Nepal and Bhutan. Along with the said application, Petitioner filed various documents including invoice issued by Volvo India for purchase of chassis, export invoice issued by petitioner, shipping bills, transport receipt, banker’s certificate, etc.

6. On 3rd February 2012, Superintendent of Central Excise sought clarifications on the aforesaid application for rebate. Petitioner, vide letter dated 14th February 2012, replied to the said clarification sought. Not satisfied with the reply, a notice dated 14th March 2012 was issued by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise calling upon Petitioner to show cause why the rebate application should not be rejected. On 26th April 2012, Petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise- Respondent No.4 passed an Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated 14th May 2012 rejecting the claim of the rebate primarily on the ground that petitioner has not filed the declaration and Form ARE-2 as required under the Notification No.21/2004 dated 6th September 2004 and consequently the verification of input-output ratio could not be done.

7. Being aggrieved by the O-I-O, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who confirmed the O-I-O vide order dated 27th December 2013. The appellate order was challenged under section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by filing a revision application before Respondent No.2. The revisional authority confirmed the Order-in-Appeal (O-I-A) vide order 15th September 2020. The said revisional authority observed that since Petitioner has failed to file declaration and further failed to submit the verification of input- output ratio, petitioner did not comply with requirements of the Notification No. 21 of 2004 and therefore the rejection of the rebate claim was justified.

8. It is on the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th September 2020 of the revisional authority and further prayed for appropriate direction to Respondents for grant of rebate of Rs.53,65,198/- alongwith interest.

9. Mr. Sridharan, at the outset, admitted that the declaration and Form ARE-2 and the