- 2020 (3) TMI 741
Rebate of Central Excise duty - rejection of rebate claims on the premise that the applicant is not a merchant exporter but he is a principal manufacturer as the ownership of the goods remained with them during the manufacturing process - HELD THAT:- The Government holds that rejection of rebate claims on account of filing before the wrong forum is not justified in the present case. It is further held that the central excise authorities (erstwhile) having jurisdiction over the manufacturer’s unit will be the appropriate authority to consider these rebate claims since the goods for purpose of export have been removed from the manufacturer’s premises on ARE-Is after payment of central excise duty. Verification of duty paid character and identity of the export goods can be established at their end. The Government allows the appli....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 740
Rebate of Central Excise duty - Non-payment of duty due to restriction in utilization of credit under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Since payment in respect of export goods was required to be made in terms of Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the exporters had no choice but to comply with the same which they have done in the instant case. Therefore the rebate claims cannot be denied on the ground that the export goods have been cleared without payment of duty from the manufacturer’s premises on the date of removal. The Government does not find any deficiency in the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order - revision dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 657
Rebate claim - export of goods - trading activity - rejection on the ground that there was no manufacturing activity undertaken and therefore no duty was leviable on it - HELD THAT:- A JCB machine (model no. JCB 4DX, colour- yellow having engine model no. JCB 444 of capacity 68.6 kw, 92 HP) has been supplied as per the export order by the applicant under the brand name of JCB. The claim of the applicant that he has fitted the cold start kit in the engine is incorrect since the export order mentions the engine and cold start kit separately and the packing list also mentions them separately - It is further observed that JCB machine has been supplied with standard accessories which are in the nature of bought out items. Since these were duty paid, the applicant has availed Cenvat credit of the same and exported them together as a single item....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 431
Rebate of duty - failure to self-sealing of the exported goods - rejection on the ground that the respondent had contravened the procedure enumerated in para 3(a)(i), (ii) & (iii) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of C.E. Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the rebate of duty on the export goods is allowed under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. subject to the conditions, limitations and procedures specified in Para 2 and Para 3 thereof. While conditions and limitations are specified in Para 2, the procedure to be followed is specified in Para 3 of this notification. From the word “shall” used in Para 2(a) to 2(g) of the notification (supra), it is evident that all the conditions and limitations mentioned in Para 2 are mandatory and non-negotiable. Further the condition that....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 373
Rebate claim - Cenvat credit reversed on depreciated value of imported capital goods (machinery parts) at the time of their export - whether the rebate of duty can be granted in case of reversal of Cenvat credit of CVD paid on imported capital goods at time of their export subsequently? HELD THAT:- Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 allows rebate claim only in those cases where the goods are manufactured in India and are liable to Central Excise duty and the same has been paid at the time of export. Since the imported goods are not liable for Central Excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 no rebate claim can be filed in respect of such goods which are not excisable under Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case the applicant could have availed duty drawback....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 372
Refund of Excise Duty - time limitation - rebate on the enhanced value which includes the expenses incurred on account of freight and insurance etc. - HELD THAT:- Government finds that it is not in dispute that the goods were exported and Central Excise duty has been paid on the export goods. The applicant has paid duty as per value mentioned in ARE-1 which is higher than the transaction value determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1962 and has claimed rebate on the enhanced value which includes the expenses incurred on account of freight and insurance etc. It is observed that the original adjudicating authority has credited the excess amount paid as duty on export goods in the Cenvat credit account as per the applicant’s request. The Government is of view that the excess amount paid by the applicant on freight and insura....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 371
Rebate of duty - failure to self seal the consignment of export - Present Revision Application has been filed by applicant mainly on the ground that the applicant missed out the self-sealing of the goods as prescribed under Notification No. 19/2004, dated 6-9-2004 and the goods were exported to Bangladesh on 5-8-2012 wherein the officer concerned has given the cross border certificate in the prescribed format of the said notification and they had received the payment remittance against the said export - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is sought to be revised. Under Rule 18, the essential condition for granting the rebate is that the goods are exported and duty has been paid on such export goods. It is not in dispute that the respondent has exported the goods on payment of duty and filed claim for rebate of ....... + More
- 2018 (12) TMI 1799
Rebate claim - time limitation - it is contended that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by holding the rebate claims within limitation period and by not taking into account the Explanations (B) (ec) to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The Government does not have any doubt that respondent had originally filed the rebate claims in time in the months of March & April 2011 and the same were substantially allowed earlier by the Assistant Commissioner and remaining amount was sanctioned subsequently by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 24-10-2011. Thus, the net effect of the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 29-7-2011 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-10-2011 was that all rebate claims filed by the respondent in the months of March & April 2011 were found admissible and accordingly the Assi....... + More
- 2018 (12) TMI 1793
Rebate of Central Excise duty paid on exported goods - sale proceeds received was lower than what was declared in the ARE-Is, the Maritime Commissioner reduced the rebate claims proportionately - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - HELD THAT:- The Government has examined the matter and it is observed that the rebate of duty is sought to be linked with the realization of foreign currency from the overseas buyer and not to the actual duty amount paid by the applicant on the exported goods. But no authentic reason is given by the lower authority in his Order for reducing the amount of rebate of duty in the above discussed situation on the basis of actual realization. In revision application also no legal authority has been cited to support the case that rebate claims can be ....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 1813
Rebate claim - denial on the ground that the applicant had exported free samples having no market value - Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- It is observed there is no dispute that the rebate of duty was claimed by the applicant in respect of the inputs used in the export of free samples for the Pharmaceutical products for which the governing Notification No. is 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Whereas the rebate claims have been dealt with and rejected by the lower authorities with reference to Condition 2(e) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 even when it is not applicable for the purpose of examining the admissibility of rebate of duty in respect of inputs. By virtue of Para 5 of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) the proce....... + More
- 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 1748
Rebate of duty - export of Endothermic Gas Generator and export of imported parts/components of Hosiery knitting Needle manufacture machines - Cenvat credit against CVD reversed as per Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - rebate was rejected by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the goods are not excisable goods, no duty of excise has been paid and Cenvat credit has been reversed at the time of clearance from the factory as required under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. HELD THAT:- The applicant has not paid any Excise duty on the generator and knitting machines and there is no export of excisable goods. Consequently, the primary condition of export of duty paid excisable goods is not established in this case and thus the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted on this ground. As regards the appli....... + 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
