Page 226 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

208 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the arguments ad-
vanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on rec-
ord.
8. The High Court of Bombay while considering an identical issue,
where the bill of export has not been filed and authorization number not dis-
closed in ARE-1s, in lieu of the same, communication of certificate of resultant
export product was enclosed, held that the fact of the export of the product can
be ascertained from the duly supplied copies of the ARE-1s forms, it is only a
further technical objection, of the said form not mentioning the advanced author-
ization number in the initial copies of the same but supplied later on, could have
been condoned. It is neither ARE-1s have not been filed nor there is a doubt
about copy of ARE-1s or the authenticity or genuineness thereof. The decision of
the Policy Relaxation Committee insisting on the bill of export was not counte-
nanced for the reason that in the earlier occasions, Policy Relaxation Committee
was ready and willing to consider the decision provided there is a proof of ful-
fillment of export obligation.
9. In this regard, it is beneficial to refer to the order of the Policy Relax-
ation Committee in some of the cases where the decision has been taken to waive
the requirement of bill of export for discharge of export obligation against ad-
vance authorization provided there is a corroborative evidence i.e., ARE-1/excise
attested invoice bearing the details of advance authorization/file number under
which goods were removed for discharge of export obligation is made available,
the RA is directed to accept such documents in lieu of bill of export. RA is also
directed to ensure that the drawback has not been claimed either by the supplier
or recipient against such supply.
10. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
as well as the earlier decision of the Policy Relaxation Committee, the consump-
tion certificate placed on record by the petitioner before the RA as well as the
Policy Relaxation Committee has not been properly appreciated. The said con-
sumption certificate indicates the details of consumption namely, the supplier
name, consignee name, customer LOA No./PO No., SEZ notification number
and date, corelates with the SEZ notification number and the advance license
number and date. In the backdrop of these documents, RA as well as the Policy
Relaxation Committee would have examined the consumption certifi-
cate/‘Certificate of Receipt of Supply’ to ascertain the genuineness of the dis-
charge of the export obligation more particularly, the statutory authorities name-
ly, the Range Superintendent of Central Excise and the Development Commis-
sioner, SEZ have appended their signature on these certificates. These Statutory
Authorities would not have appended their signature and allowed the endorse-
ment or the affixation of a stamp, unless they were satisfied that these are the
very ARE-1 forms issued at the relevant point of time which co-related with ad-
vance authorization and its number and date. On examining these consumption
certificates, the Authorities could have condoned requirements of generating the
bill of export and raising an objection that ARE-1 forms submitted without the
number and date, would be hyper-technical. In the circumstances of the case
where substantial material was placed on record to establish the factum of the
export as contemplated under the Act and Rules or in other words, complying
with the requirement contemplated under the Act and Rules, supplying the
goods from the domestic tariff area to SEZ, considered to be equivalent to an ex-
port of goods physically from this country to abroad requires consideration.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  226