Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Surya Exports Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

2015 (4) TMI 312 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Denial of refund claim - appellants have not produced proper evidence to substantiate their claim - Held that:- The appellants have not produced the original documents neither before the adjudicating authority nor before the appellate authority. It was found that description of the goods mentioned in the invoices were not tallying with the exporter's invoices and also the goods removed on the strength of consignment notes and not by excise invoices. It is also brought out in the appellate or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent : None ORDER This an appeal filed by appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.9/2005-(TRY) (ADK) dt. 20.1.2005. 2. The appeal was listed for hearing on 1.11.2013, 3.1.2014 and again on 13.6.2014. On 13.6.2014, the matter was adjourned as a last chance. In spite of that, none appeared today or is there any application for adjournment. Since appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal, the appeal is taken up on merits based on records. 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ents. The dates in the invoices of the merchant exporter precede the dates mentioned in the manufacturers invoices as mentioned in the impugned order. In some cases, the description of the goods and code No. mentioned in the manufacturers' invoices were not tallying with the exporters' invoices. The goods were removed on the strength of the consignment note which is not a excise document for the purpose of excisable goods from the factory. Even if goods are cleared by consignment notes, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1 of CER 2002. I find that in 13 invoices as mentioned in the impugned order, the exporter's invoice, shipping bills and let export orders were pre-dated to the date of manufacturer's invoice. The manufacturer of excisable goods are removing goods under rule 11 of CER 2002 and the date mentioned in the invoices by the manufacturer is relevant. The dates in the invoices of the merchant exporter precedes the dates mentioned in the manufacturers invoices and the date of the shipping bill an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

refund Hence the rejection of refund claim by the lower authority is correct in law and therefore it is to be upheld." The appellants have not produced the original documents neither before the adjudicating authority nor before the appellate authority. It was found that description of the goods mentioned in the invoices were not tallying with the exporter's invoices and also the goods removed on the strength of consignment notes and not by excise invoices. It is also brought out in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version