2016 (3) TMI 1164 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Positive Packaging Industries Ltd.
Rebate claim - rejection on the ground that the vessel in which the goods covered in both rebate claims were loaded colluded with another vessel immediately after leaving the port and as such the goods cannot be treated as exported - whether the impugned goods can be said to have been exported for the applicant to be entitled for rebate in terms of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002? - Held that - export takes place when goods leave India to a....... + More
2015 (12) TMI 1644 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Md)
Refund - No supporting document - No revised application of refund - Notification No. 46/94-C.E. - Unjust enrichment - Held that - It is a settled issue that benefit under a conditional notification cannot be extended in case of non-fulfillment of conditions and/or non-compliance of procedure prescribed therein as held by the Apex Court in the case of Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association - 2005 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ; ....... + More
2015 (12) TMI 1643 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd.
Rebate - Rule 18 of CER, 2002 - The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 03-10/Kol-III/2013, dated 15-2-2013 held that as the goods were exempted, any amount which is not payable in terms of Section 3 read with Section 4 ibid does not have the character of duty and were not eligible for rebate under Rule 18 ibid. He ordered the same to be repaid in cash along with interest under Section 11AB ibid. - Held that - when the goods ....... + More
2015 (12) TMI 1641 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Somson Exports
Classification - Rebate - Interest - Diesel engines or centrifugal pumps - Held that - it is observed that while a diesel engine is a compression ignition engine or an internal combustion engine, a centrifugal pump is a pump, driven by a motor/turbine such as an internal combustion engine, for moving liquids such as water. The centrifugal pumps are, as per HSN Explanatory Notes, appropriately classifiable under Tariff Heading 8413 70 - The diesel....... + More
2015 (12) TMI 1640 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Kec International Ltd.
Rebate claim - rejection on account of non-production of proper proof of export - Held that - the export of duty paid excisable goods cleared from factory cannot be established and the lower authorities have rightly concluded that export of duty paid goods is not established in this case - rebate claim is not admissible to the applicant u/r 18 of CER, 2002 read with N/N. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - revision application rejected........ + More
2015 (10) TMI 2614 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Carter Container Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Misdeclaration of the export of goods - DEPB Scheme - procedural infirmity - applicability of rule 19 of CER, 2002 - applicant initially exported the goods under ARE-1 No. EX/109/2005-06, dated 31-10-2009 under DEPB scheme, duly sealed and signed by the Inspector of Central Excise. At the port of export, the Customs officials refused to sign the same on the ground that the ARE-1 was not signed by the Superintendent, Central Excise. That being adv....... + More
2015 (10) TMI 2613 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Upper Doab Sugar Mills
Remission of duty - Rule 21 of CER, 2002 - imposition of penalty u/r 25 of CER, 2002 - storage loss - destruction of molasses - rejection on the ground that the bursting of the tank was neither due to natural reasons nor unavoidable accident - applicability of Board Circular F. No. 261/15CC/1/80-CX 8, dated 6-2-1982 - Held that - Government notes that penalty shall be imposed on a manufacturer if he removes goods in contravention of the provision....... + More
2015 (9) TMI 1530 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : DSM Sugar
Shortage in stock of molasses - storage loss - demand of duty - whether shortage detected during stock taking was actual shortage and whether applicant can claim shortage detected to be storage loss due to natural causes? - Held that - The shortage due to storage loss if any is not reflected in returns. If there was a storage loss at all the applicant as per general industry practice should have approached the jurisdictional Central Excise Author....... + More
2015 (8) TMI 1363 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : laxmi solvex
Rejection of rebate - Rule 18 of CER, 2002 - Ignorance of law - Held that - applicant had not exported the impugned goods on ARE-2 application as per the requirement of the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, although they are registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The procedures specified in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and in Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 relating to remo....... + More
2015 (8) TMI 1329 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : N.V.R. Forgings
Compliance of Rule 19 of CER, 2002 and N/N. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 - recovery u/S 11A - export clearance without payment of duty and also non-compliance of conditions of notification - Export against H-Form , - execution of bond but neither ARE-1 nor proof of export was filed as stipulated under the Rules - Held that - Government observes that any export clearance, intended to be made without payment of duty, will be subject to Rule....... + More
2015 (8) TMI 1325 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Raghav Industries Ltd.
Whether the rebate of duty and duty draw back can be claimed simultaneously? - N/N.68/2011-Cus. (N.T.), dated 20-9-2011 - Held that - decision in the case of AMRIT PAPER Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA 2006 (7) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA relied upon where it was held that primacy to a Notification cannot be given over Rules as such interpretation will render statutory provisions in Rules nugatory. - Government holds that the i....... + More
2015 (7) TMI 1191 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Kadri Mills (CBE) Ltd.
Debonding of unit - 100 EOU converted to DTA - rebate - The original authority held that as the applicant availed higher rate of drawback comprising Customs, Central Excise and Service tax portion, the benefit of rebate cannot be held admissible as it will amount to double benefit. Accordingly, the original authority denied to sanction the rebate in cash and in such cases instead allowed re-credit in applicant s Cenvat account. - Held that - the ....... + More
2015 (6) TMI 1111 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Padam Fashion
Rebate claim - denial on the ground that the merchant exporter have availed drawback of duty in respect of the goods for which the manufacturer has claimed the rebate of Central Excise duty paid at the time of clearance and hence, claims of rebate would result in double benefit - Held that - The provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are interpreted by Hon ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Indora....... + More
2015 (6) TMI 1110 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
In Re : Perel Ritz
Recovery - duty drawback granted earlier - recovery on the ground that applicant failed to produce the evidence for realization of export proceeds in respect of impugned exported goods for which they were allowed drawback within the period allowed under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 including any extensions of such period granted by the RBI - Held that - it is a statutory requirement under relevant sections that export proceeds need to be....... + More
2015 (4) TMI 208 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
M/s Mission Vivacare Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-II
Denial of rebate claim - Partial claim sanctioned on the ground that part goods were not exported within six months from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of manufacture or within permitted extended period in terms of Notification No.19/04-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004 - original authority confirmed the demand of erroneously sanctioned rebate - Held that - In view of previous GOI order confirmation of demand of ₹ 11948....... + More
2015 (4) TMI 207 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
M/s Glenmark Phamaceuticals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad.
Denial of rebate claim - name and address of Maritime Commissioner was either over written or wrongly mentioned - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed any order w.r.t. rebate claim amount of ₹ 2587266/- as the said amount was sanctioned by ACCE in subsequent order. It is a settled legal position that an authority after passing the order become functus officio and cannot revise its own order. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred is ....... + More
2015 (4) TMI 206 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
M/s Vijay Chemical Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II
Denial of rebate claim - Rebate claim earlier rejected vide GOI order but condition imposed upon assessee - Held that - Applicant has stated that they have already paid the amount of confirmed demand to the department and these revision applications have become infructuous. - applicant has failed to file copy of impugned order-in-appeal despite two reminders from this office. The facts of the case and decision of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be ....... + More
2015 (4) TMI 205 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad
Denial of rebate claim - values declared in ARE-1 form were more than value declared in shipping bills and the value declared in ARE-1 was not correct transaction value in terms of section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - correct transaction value was arrived at after deducting freight and insurance from commercial price (CIF), that the rebate claim was not admissible on free samples - Held that - Any amount paid in excess of duty liability on one....... + More
2015 (4) TMI 164 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III Commissionerate Versus M/s Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd.
Interest demand on erroneously sanctioned rebate claim - Held that - As per section 11AA, the person who is liable to pay duty shall in addition to the duty be liable to pay interest at the rate specified in sub-section (2). These statutory provisions are quite clear and interest is payable automatically. The respondent has already accepted their interest liability. As such, Government orders that in this case interest is payable in terms of sect....... + More
2015 (4) TMI 163 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
M/s. Medrel Pharmaceutical (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.
Denial of rebate claim - Commissioner (Appeals) mainly on the ground that the rebate claims were sanctioned of duty paid on value which was more than transaction value and the claims should be restricted to duty paid on transaction value - Held that - Applicant has stated that while clearing the goods from factory they prepared ARE-1 No. 199/09-10 dtd. 27-10-2009 in the month of October 2009, when exchange rate was 47.70 Rs. Per US and ARE-1 No. ....... + More