Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + Commissioner Central Excise - 2013 (2) TMI Commissioner This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (2) TMI 56 - Commissioner - Central Excise


Issues:
Appeal against rejection of rebate claim for excise duty on exported goods due to procedural violations and alleged non-payment of duty on inputs.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Nylon Filament yarn for fishnet business, filed a rebate claim for excise duty paid on raw materials used in exported fishnet twine. The claim was rejected by the Lower Adjudicating Authority citing procedural lapses and non-borne duty incidence.

2. Grounds of appeal included statutory provisions allowing rebate on exported goods, compliance with CBEC manual instructions, absence of availed credit on duty paid yarn, and the contention that appellant had borne the duty incidence.

3. During the hearing, the appellant argued that denial of rebate based on duty exemption of final products was incorrect. They highlighted Central Excise Rules allowing rebate on duty paid raw materials used in exported goods.

4. The Commissioner analyzed the case records and submissions. It was found that the appellant imported Nylon chips with customs duty, converted to yarn by another entity, and duty paid on yarn was adjusted between related parties. The appellant exported twines made from duty paid yarn without claiming Cenvat credit.

5. The Commissioner noted that the issue revolved around rebate for exported goods and materials, not unjust enrichment. The appellant had informed authorities about export details and sought permission for rebate, which was not objected to by the department.

6. Referring to relevant case law, the Commissioner concluded that the denial of rebate based on procedural violations was unjustified. The appellant was deemed entitled to the rebate claimed, and the Lower Adjudicating Authority's decision was set aside in favor of the appellant.

7. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates