Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise CGOVT Central Excise - CGOVT
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - Central Government - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 878 Records

  • 2016 (7) TMI 989 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Biocon Limited, Bangalore Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bangalore

    Condonation of delay - Types of duties which are eligible for rebate in terms of rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. - CVD paid on inputs as imported - It is reiterated that non-fulfillment or otherwise of condition No.53 of Notification No.21/2002-Cus would Have no Application for claiming rebate of specified duties which were not exempted but actually been paid by the applicant. -....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 982 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Mahashakti Coke, Mundra Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Rajkot.

    Rebate claim - export of less quantity of goods - natural loss of goods in transit - The applicant claimed that the difference in quantity cleared from the factory and that exported was due to loss of goods occurred on account of moisture content and transportation handling losses subsequent to clearance from factory. - Held that - In this regard, Government notes that the applicant could not cite any applicable provisions, where such loss subseq....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 981 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Inglobe Exports, Mumbai. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-Il

    Condonation of delay in filing revision application - Availing duty drawback while getting rabte/ refund of duty paid on export of goods - Applicants submit that the exporters are eligible for Duty Drawback on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods if the same is covered in the Customs & Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules 1995 at the rate prescribed in the drawback schedule. They are also eligible for Rebate of duty paid on the final ....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 869 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-Ill. Versus M/s. Cipla Ltd.

    Condonation of delay - department has filed these revision application 4 days after initial stipulated three months period - Rebate / refund claim - export of goods - the original authority rejected the rebate in toto, on the ground that the applicant claimed simultaneous benefit of rebate and drawback which is not admissible. - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal by holding that as the respondent availed only Customs portion of drawback, r....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 868 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s. Fichem, Ahmedabad. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad.

    Rebate / refund claim - The applicants contended that the declaration made on as ARE-I was clerical in nature and same may be condoned as a procedural mistake. - applicant failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 as declared by them at Sl.No.3(b) of the impugned ARE-I - Held that - Once, it has been certified that exported goods have suffered duty at the time of removal, it can be logical....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 867 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s. Bliss GVS Pharma Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad.

    Rebate / refund claim - applicant did not submit original and triplicate copy of the ARE-I. - applicant s rebate claim was initially sanctioned by the original authority. The department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) contesting that there were certain discrepancies in documents submitted by the applicant. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed department s appeal. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in ....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 866 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-Ill Versus M/s. United Enterprises, Mumbai.

    Condonation of delay - department has filed these revision application 4 days after initial stipulated three months period - Rebate / refund claim - export of goods - The original authority rejected the rebate claim for simultaneously claiming two benefits viz input credit and drawback claim, which are not admissible to them. - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal holding that as the applicant availed only customs portion of drawback, rebate in ....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 865 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Xomox Sanmar Ltd., Viralimalai Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tiruchirapally.

    Rebate / Refund claim - part of the claim rejected on the ground that applicant has not given any explanation for non-filing of Bill of Lading. - Held that - the applicant relied on the various judgments regarding procedural relaxation on technical grounds. The point which needs to be emphasized is that when the applicant seeks rebate under Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004, which prescribes compliance of certain conditions, the s....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 806 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2nd Floor, Chinuhai Centre, Off. Nehru Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009 Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II

    Rebate/ refund claim - export of goods - in one case the container number and seal numbers on various export documents were not tallying; in the other case the date of Mate Receipt was 0502.2009 and as per the endorsement of the Custom Officer, the goods had been exported on 05.02.2009 itself whereas the corresponding ARE-I was dated 28.02.2009 and the Shipping Bill was dated 26102.2009. The rebate claim was also rejected for non-submission of BR....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 805 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Black Stone Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur

    Rebate / refund claim - Rule 18 - merchant export - it was revealed that there was no acknowledgement with regard to Let Export Order by the Customs Authority except for an initial of Superintendent of Customs. Further it was also revealed that the ARE-I did not bear any certificate regarding self-sealing as provided under Clause 6 of Chapter 8 (Export under claim for Rebate) of Supplementary Instructions. It also did not contain the declaration ....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 804 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s RHI CLASSIL LIMITED, Visakhapatnam Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam.

    Rebate / refund claim - Rebate claim on the basis of supplementary invoices - Period of limitation - Rule 18 - The applicant filed rebate claims and the same were sanctioned - Subsequently, because of contractual obligation the applicant received additional amounts due to cost variance from their importers i.e. M/S. RHI AG Vienna and their other affiliated group companies, on which the applicant paid the differential duty with interest. Subsequen....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 803 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Themis Medicare Limited, Haridwar Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-l

    Rebate / refund claim - input stage credit - inputs used in the manufacture of their export goods - claim was rejected on the grounds that the applicant has manufactured and exported the finished goods before filing the requisite declaration under the said notification and failed to fulfil the condition of the Notification No. 21/2004 -CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. - Held that - While claiming the rebate under such Notification No.21/2004-NT dated 06........ + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 802 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Rama Steel Tubes Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad.

    Condonation of delay - Rebate / refund claim - proof of export of goods - discrepancy in ARE-I from - applicant contended that, the customs authorities while signing certificate on triplicate of ARE-I against Part-B inadvertently endorsed wrong shipping bill no. 1044599 which was subsequently was got corrected as no. 1045171 bearing the dated signatures of the customs officers on such corrections made by them dated 07.01.2010. - Held that - Gover....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 772 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Bhuwalika Steel Industries Ltd., Thane Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

    Claim of rebate/ refund - export of goods - ARE-Is, did not have a certification of the Central Excise Officer that the export goods were sealed with Central Excise seal before the Officers. - The ARE-Is also did not bear a declaration of the exporter that the consignment has been packed and sealed in his presence by the seal, indicating that the goods claimed to have been cleared for export, had been cleared from the factory without any sealing........ + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 720 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-Il

    Demand of duty on account of either transferred losses or on failure to furnish re-warehousing certificate - business of refining of crude and marketing various petroleum products thereof. - Held that - Government notes that the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed findings with regard to factual aspect of submission of re-warehousing certificate and observed that the same were not submitted by the applicant in the pre....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 719 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III

    Rebate/Refund claim - proper documents - applicant had submitted photocopies of clearance documents viz ARE-1 and Central Excise Invoice for sanction of rebate claim - Export of goods manufactured by third party - Held that - Government notes that original copy of ARE-I and Excise invoice among other documents are essential documents for claiming rebate. Any non-submission of documents in the manner prescribed thus imparts a character of invalidi....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 718 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Cipla Ltd., Mumbai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III

    Rebate/ Refund claim - merchant exporters - The duty was paid 10 under Notification No. 2/08-CE dated 01.03.2008, as amended. However, the rebate sanctioning authority, has held that the effective rate of duty on the export goods was 4 vide Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended. Hence the claimant was eligible for rebate of duty 4 adv. paid on export goods. However the rebate claim was rejected on the grounds that in ARE-I No. 04....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 656 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Mumbai

    Rabte / refund claim - Export of goods after 6 months from the date of clearance of goods from factory - violation to permission of Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. - Held that - The applicant has contended that the case laws relied upon by them vide their submission dated 15.04.2011 before the original authority has neither been analysed nor distinguished in the order. A perusal of the impugned Orders-in Original shows that in pa....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 655 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    M/s USV Ltd., Mumbai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Raigad.

    Rebate / refund claim - applicant exported the goods procured from the manufacturer and filed rebate claim - original authority rejected the rebate claims filed by the applicant on the ground that the declaration given at Sr.No.3(a)(b) & (c) is incomplete. - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed findings with regard to factual aspect of each AREs-1 and observed that there has been mismatch in details given in AREs-1 and Shippi....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 434 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

    Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh-ll Versus M/s Ind-Swift Labs Limited.

    Claim of rebate/ refund - input stage rebate - export of goods - The adjudicating authority rejected all the rebate claims of the respondent holding that they failed to get the input output ratio approved in respect of Menthol Crystals as required under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06109.2004 and rebate claim were not admissible to them as they had failed to fulfill the conditions of Notification ibid. - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed th....... + More


1........
 
 
 
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version