Case Details: Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 34 Centax 5 (M.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vivek Rusia & Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
- Shri Agrim Arora, Adv., for the Petitioner
- Shri Prasanna Prasad, Adv., for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an assessee engaged in the manufacture and export of P & P Medicaments samples, initially transferred goods from its Dewas factory to its New Delhi factory on a stock transfer basis and subsequently cleared the goods for export to foreign agencies. The assessee filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, submitting proof of export including shipping bills, bills of exchange, and export invoices. The adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claim solely on the ground that the goods were not exported directly from the Dewas factory and no ARE-1 forms were filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, observing that the goods were exported after duty payment and substantial conditions for rebate were satisfied. However, the revisional authority restored the original order, noting that Rule 18 and Chapter 8 of the CBEC Manual required verification that the exported goods were the same duty-paid goods cleared from the factory, which could not be established in the absence of ARE-1 forms prepared by the Central Excise Officer at the place of manufacture. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the original ARE-1 copy was a fundamental document for export under rebate claims, serving to verify both the identity and quantity of duty-paid goods. It was observed that without following the procedure prescribed in Chapter 8 of the CBEC Manual, it was impossible to ascertain whether the exported goods corresponded to those cleared from the Dewas factory. The court concluded that the failure to prepare ARE-1 and the absence of direct export from the manufacturing unit rendered the rebate claim untenable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in favor of the Department.
List Of Cases Reviewed
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. — Order dated 29-12-2005 by Government of India — Affirmed [Paras 1, 6, 26]
List Of Cases Cited
- UM Cables Ltd. v. Union of India — 2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.) — Distinguished [Paras 9, 21]
- Raj Petro Specialities v. Union of India — 2017 (345) E.L.T. 496 (Guj.) — Distinguished [Paras 9, 21]
- Aarti Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 2014 (305) E.L.T. 196 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 9]
- Kaizen Plastomould Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (330) E.L.T. 40 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 9]
- Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 12, 24]
- Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation — 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 12]
- Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Tax Officer — AIR 1966 SC 12 — Referred [Para 12]
- Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner — 2011 (270) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 12]
- MPD Industries Limited v. Union of India — 2020 (372) E.L.T. 638 (M.P.) — Referred [Paras 12, 24]
- Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil — (2010) 8 SCC 329 — Followed [Para 25]
