Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 869 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDenial of rebate claim - procedure prescribed under the Notification 21/2004(NT) dated 06.09.2004 had not been followed - non submission of original and duplicate copy of Form A.R.E.-2 - procurement of the input from a firm who was neither a registered manufacturer nor a registered dealer with the department - Held that:- Rebate sanctioning authority shall not reject the rebate claim on the ground of non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms if it is otherwise satisfied that conditions for grant of rebate have been fulfilled. - Following decision of UM Cables Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others [2013 (5) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] In order to avail benefit of import stage rebate under notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) the exporter needs to follow certain condition and procedure one of the substantial requirement was to procure the goods directly from manufacturer place. In this case, M/s Sudhir Gensets Limited raised invoices to M/s. Neptro Renewable Energy India Pvt. Ltd. on 9.02.2010, while M/s Neptro has raised invoices to the applicant on 26.02.2010. The applicant could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding such gap of time in issuance of invoices to support their contention that goods were procured directly from manufacturer. As such applicant failed to produce any evidence to show that they procured the goods directly from factor premises. Under such circumstances, Government finds that the applicant failed to fulfill substantial condition of the said notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) and therefore, rendered themselves liable for rejection of this rebate claim. - Matter remanded back - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|