|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Central Government - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 898 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2018 (8) TMI 1450
Rebate claim - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with N/N. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - bulk drugs exported out of India for Excise duty paid by the Principal Manufacturer - denial of rebate on the ground that the goods were not directly exported from the factory of the manufacturer as stipulated in the Notification - rejection also on the ground of time limitation. Held that:- It is absolutely clear that there is no dispute about the fact that the goods are not exported directly from the factory of the principal manufacturer or the factory of the applicant. Whereas, as per condition 2(a) of the Notification No. 19/2004, the rebate of the duty shall be available only if the goods are exported directly from the factory or warehouse except as otherwise permitted by the C.B.E. & C. by a general or special order - apart....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1656
Rebate claim - rejection on the ground that the rebate of duty in respect of basic Customs duty was not admissible and the rebate of duty for additional duty of Customs only could be granted - Rule 18 of CER 2002, read with N/N. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) - Held that:- The Government finds that the lower authorities have confused the central excise duty paid by the applicant in respect of inputs as customs duty for the reason that measure of levy of central excise duty on the goods manufactured by the 100% EOU is equivalent to the aggregate of the Customs duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. But for this reason alone the excise duty leviable on such goods cannot be misconstrued as duty of customs and the legal reality is that the duty levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act on the goods manufactured by 100% EOU is Central Exc....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1654
Rebate of duty - rejection on the ground that the applicant had availed drawback of duty as well as rebate of duty in respect of inputs used in the exported goods and, therefore, the drawback of duty will not be admissible to the applicant by virtue of para 7(e) of N/N. 68/2007-Cus. (N.T.), dated 16-7-2007 - Held that:- The Government fully agrees with the applicant that while availment of rebate of duty on inputs used in the manufacturing of exported goods is a disqualification for availment of the drawback of duty under Drawback Rules, availment of drawback per se is not a disqualification for availment of rebate of duty under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules or Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. Moreover, the applicant has claimed to have paid the drawback of duty amount along with interest to the Custom House, Kolkata and thereby it cannot ....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1653
Rebate of duty - rejection of rebate on the ground of non-submission of Central Excise invoice in respect of exported goods - whether procedural lapse or otherwise? - Held that:- Non-issuing of invoice is primarily a breach of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and is not a sole evidence of payment of duty. But no penal action is apparently taken against the respondent for non-issuing of the invoice in contravention of Rule 11 and rather this lapse is being used by the applicant for denial of rebate of duty. Submission of copy of the invoice along with rebate claim is not a condition in the above Notification and its requirement in the C.B.E. & C.’s Manual of Supplementary Instructions is just for guiding the departmental officers for ensuring sanctioning rebate of duty against duty paid exported goods only. But it cannot be given ....... + More
- 2018 (4) TMI 1652
Rebate claim - C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 828/5/2006-CX, dated 20-4-2006 - Held that:- The Government has examined the matter and it is found from the Order-in-Appeal that this issue has been already discussed in detail by the Commissioner and their eligibility of rebate claim of 80% in advance has been rejected on the ground that there were some cases of arrear against the applicant and even penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act were imposed on the applicant during the year 2012-13 which were even paid by the applicant. This fact has not been denied by the applicant also in their Revision applications and they have merely stated that these cases arose due to interpretational dispute only - The Government believes that while each dispute has interpretational angle, the truth in the matter is that the applicant did not have cl....... + More
- 2018 (3) TMI 1724
Rebate claim - export of goods - Gutkha - denial of rebate on the ground that the respondent had not paid the Central Excise duty for the full month of July, 2012 and had paid duty for the 5 days only - Held that:- The issue in the present case is regarding rebate of duty against the export of goods and not a case of abatement of duty claimed by the respondent for which duty for the whole month is required to be paid in advance - Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-8-2008 does not stipulate any condition that the duty payment for the entire month is a pre-condition for claiming rebate of duty on exported goods and the rebate of duty has been claimed by the respondent in respect of central excise duty only paid on the exported goods. As per Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 32/2008, the main conditions f....... + More
- 2018 (3) TMI 1720
Remission of duty - 70,000 sticks of cigarettes which were stolen from the factory of the respondent - Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 - Held that:- The Government has examined the matter and it is found that the issue involved in the Revision application is undisputedly regarding remission of duty on the stolen cigarettes. Whereas, as per first proviso to Section 35B read with Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Revision application can be filed with the Government against the O-I-A only if the order relates to a case of loss of goods, a rebate of duty of Excise on exported goods and goods exported outside India without payment of duty. The theft of the cigarettes has been committed in this case while the goods were lying in the factory in fully finished condition and, therefore, it cannot be covered in the ambit ....... + More
- 2017 (12) TMI 1671
Rebate claim - rejection on the ground of time bar - export of goods vide ARE-1’s - the entire Revision Application is based on the premise that the Department did not return the Rebate Claim or issued any deficiency memo to the respondent and, therefore, the resubmission of Rebate Claim on 11-10-2013 must be considered as a fresh filing of Rebate Claim by which the period of rebate claim was already over - Held that:- The Government does not agree with the applicant’s view as it is quite evident from the above facts that withdrawal of the claim took place with the discussion, direction, approval, knowledge or consent with the Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of a Central Excise Division and after having accepted this fact a technical stand of no communication from the Department cannot be resorted to. A verbal communication from a public autho....... + More
- 2017 (12) TMI 1666
Rebate claim - time limitation - rejection on the ground of failure to submit pre-intimation to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner regarding input-output ratio and its prior approval under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2006 - rejection also due to re-submission of the rebate claims beyond the period of one year as specified under Section 11B of Central Excise Act - Held that:- The applicant had withdrawn their earlier filed rebate claims from the Division office on their own volition and same were filed later on by which the one year limitation period as specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was already over - The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in her order that the refund claims were withdrawn suo motu and department did not issue any deficiency note. Hence it amounts to non-filing of the rebate....... + More
- 2017 (11) TMI 1781
Rebate of Central Excise duty in cash - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - revision applications have been filed mainly on the ground that rebate of duty is to be granted in cash only under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 even if the duty is paid on the exported goods from Cenvat credit - C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 687/3/2003-cx, dated 3-1-2003 - Held that:- Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 are examined and it is found that these two relevant provisions for this matter do not provide anywhere that if the duty of Central Excise is paid from Cenvat credit for exported goods then rebate of duty is to be granted in Cenvat credit account only. These two provisions talk of granting of rebate of duty only and the same can be possible only in cash and not in form of Cenvat cre....... + More
- 2017 (11) TMI 1780
Rebate of duty - export of goods - case of Revenue is that foreign exchange has not been received against 8 ARE-1s involving rebate amount of ₹ 29,88,308/- - Held that:- There is no doubt regarding export of duty paid goods by the applicant which is the fundamental requirement under Rule 18 and the Notification No. 19/2004. For Central Excise authorities Rule 18 and N/N. 19/2004 are the guiding and governing legal provisions. If there is any violation of FEMA and RBI Notifications for not realization of the value of exported goods, the matter should be referred to other Government agencies who are entrusted with the task of enforcing these legal provisions. But these cannot be used by the Central Excise authorities to deny the rebate of duty in the light of referred Rule 18, N/N. 19/2004 and Board Circulars. There is no deficiency found in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - rebate is to be allowed - revision application dismissed.
- 2017 (11) TMI 1779
Rebate claim - N/N. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - inputs used in the manufacture and supply of one Pre-Fabricated Steel Building supplied to M/s. Kalyani Global Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on A/c Kalyani Alstom Power Ltd., located in the SEZ, Mundra Kutch, Gujarat - rejection of rebate on the ground that the applicant had not followed the conditions and procedure under N/N. 21/2004 - Held that:- The Government is of the view that even though the above-mentioned procedure is a very important feature of Notification No. 21/2004, it will not be fair if the applicant is denied the benefit of rebate of duty in the above circumstances just because they could not follow the above procedure/conditions. It is not denied by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) also that it was their first export of the goods to the SEZ and su....... + More
- 2017 (11) TMI 1778
Rebate of duty - export of Gutkha - prohibited item or not? - N/N. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 read with N/N. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-8-2008 - Held that:- One of the conditions for allowing rebate of duty on excisable goods under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 read with Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-8-2008 is that export of goods should not be prohibited under any law for the time being in force. Since the export of Gutkha from 18-7-2012 involving sale, transportation and storage etc. in the State of Rajasthan was prohibited by the Government of Rajasthan, the above condition in Notification No. 19/2004 that goods should not be prohibited under any law is undoubtedly attracted in this case. Therefore, the Government observes that the rebate of duty has been rightly disallowed by the Com....... + More
- 2017 (11) TMI 1738
Rebate claim - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeal) has correctly observed that the applicant should have filed the rebate claim in this case on or before 1-11-2012 and because the rebate claim has been filed actually on 5-4-2013 it is time-barred in the light of Section 11B of the Act. Since, the Rebate claim in this case has been filed undoubtedly beyond one year from the date of export it is hit by time limitation and it cannot be relaxed by the Government under Section 11B as there is no legal provision for doing so. The Revision Application filed by the M/s. Svarn Telecom Ltd. is rejected.
- 2017 (10) TMI 1431
Rebate of duty on the exported goods - handicrafts - applicant was earlier a hundred per cent EOU and they subsequently opted out of EOU Scheme - duty was paid at the time of debonding of unit - rejection of rebate on the ground that no central excise duty was paid by the applicant as DTA Unit and the duty paid by hundred per cent EOU was paid because it was required to be paid at the time of de-bonding of the unit - Held that:- In the instant case the goods had been cleared by a hundred per cent EOU on clearance of goods into DTA in terms of proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act whose status became at par with the duty paid goods available in the market. He has further observed that it is not a case of clearance of excisable goods on payment of excise duty for export under claim of rebate but is a case of export of goods already....... + More
- 2017 (10) TMI 1430
Rebate of duty - export of goods - DI pipes - rejection of rebate on the ground of Jurisdiction - rebate rejected on the ground that the said rebate claim falls under the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner, Division KDH-I Khardah, West Bengal wherefrom the goods were exported and not falling in the jurisdiction of Bokaro Division where the respondent filed the rebate claim - Held that:- It cannot be overlooked that respondent was compelled to send the semi-finished DI pipes to the Khardah unit for some minor job work due to not receiving any response from Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi under Rule 16B of C. Ex Rules for sending the goods for job work to Khardah unit. Moreover, the duty of Excise has been paid by the respondent in Bokaro Division only and rebate of duty is also claimed against the duty paid in the Bokaro Divisio....... + More
- 2017 (10) TMI 1429
CENVAT Credit - export of goods - duty on exported goods paid from wrongly availed Cenvat credit - Held that:- The Government has noticed that the applicant has also not disputed the fact that duty paid by them on exported goods was actually from the fraudulently availed credit as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). But still in the Revision Application the applicant has stressed that the Cenvat credit wrongly availed by them has already been paid by them as per order of the Settlement Commission and after having done so the duty paid on exported goods from even wrong Cenvat credit cannot be said to be paid from inadmissible credit. But the Government does not find any substance in this argument as the fact still remains that the exported goods remained non-duty-paid goods even after payment of an amount as per Settlement Commission’s ord....... + More
- 2017 (10) TMI 1428
Rebate claim - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - area based exemption claimed - rejection on the ground that since the manufacturer M/s. Mohini Metal Industries, Jammu, had already taken refund of excise duty paid on the exported goods, rebate of duty was not admissible to the applicants - rejection of appeal for the second time - whether the applicant is eligible for rebate of duty when refund of duty has already been granted to the manufacturer under an area based exemption scheme enshrined in N/N. 56/2002-C.E.? Held that:- Under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 first and foremost condition is that exported goods should be duty paid. But in this case no duty has been paid on the goods cleared by the Jammu based manufacturer as the goods manufactured in whole of J&K State are exempted under Notification No. 56/2002. The ex....... + More
- 2017 (10) TMI 1387
Rebate claim - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- The rebate claim could be submitted by the applicant only after export of the goods supported by all relevant documents to establish export of the goods and as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it should have been lodged with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within one year of the relevant date which is 7-1-2010 in this case - Thus the rebate claim should have been filed by the applicant by 6-1-2011. But the applicant has filed the rebate claim on 5-9-2011 which is undisputedly beyond the prescribed period of one year. The contention that the time limitation is merely a procedural issue and not a substantive law is also not having any force as under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the time-limit of one year is a crucial condition and is not just a procedural requirement. Decided against appellant.
- 2017 (9) TMI 1790
Rebate of duty - CVD paid on imported inputs which were used in the manufacturing of exported tractors - Held that:- There is no dispute in this case relating to the fact that the applicant has imported some of the inputs on payment of additional duty of Customs, i.e. countervailing duties (CVD), and the same were used in the manufacturing of exported tractors. There is also no doubt that N/N. 21/2004 provide for rebate of duty in respect of CVD also as the word ‘duty’ for the purpose of paying rebate claim is defined to include even the CVD. These facts are expressly accepted by Commissioner (Appeals) also in his order - However, still, the applicant is not allowed rebate of duty in respect of CVD for the reason that they have imported the inputs directly and did not obtain imported materials from the registered factory or from dealers u....... + More
........
|
