Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 191 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (6) TMI 191 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Denial of refund claim - duty on inputs used for export goods - appellant has not taken any credit in RG23 A Part II of the input received - appellant is not an independent exporter - Tribunal has remanded matter back only for the purpose to ascertain the fact, that whether the export of goods effected through U.K. Paints has been made under DEEC scheme or not, as in such a situation MODVAT Credit cannot be availed - Held that:- appellant has procured .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titled for refund of duty paid on the inputs. Therefore,appellant is entitled for refund claim. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/121/2008-EX(SM) - Dated:- 20-4-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri P K Mittal, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri R K Mishra, DR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the refund claim. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Detergent Powder filed refund cla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he said order was challenged before the Collector (Appeals), who vide order dated 31.08.1992 remanded matter back to re-examine the matter in the light of the order passed by this Tribunal in appellant's own case vide order No. A/280-281/92 NRB dated 23.06.1992. In remand proceedings, on 21.01.1994, the Assistant Collector again rejected the refund claim on the ground that in respect of imports were made against advanced licence after April, 1990, the conditions and limitations stipulated in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efund claim in terms of the order of this Tribunal dated 23.06.1992. In remand, the Dy. Commissioner on 01.11.1999 again rejected the refund claim on the ground that goods exported by M/s U.K. Paints and appellant is not an independent exporter. The said order was again challenged before the Ld. Commissioner who also rejected the refund claim on 26.12.2001. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and vide order 18.12.2012, this Tribunal remanded matter back to the adjudicating authori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

remanded matter back to the Asstt. Commissioner but again on 23.01.2006 rejected the refund claim on appeal the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) on 17.07.2006 again remanded matter back to the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, on 12.02.2007 the Asstt. Commissioner again rejected the refund claim on premise that since the credit on input/raw material used by the appellant is not admissible the refund claim thereof cannot be granted, as it is only the said MODVAT credit which, if remains unutilized can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d at least two times this Tribunal remanded matter back to the adjudicating authority. 5. In the last order of this Tribunal vide no. A/1149/02 dated 18.12.2002 observed as under: The appellants have claimed that the Assistant Collector, while adjudicating the matter vide order dated 21.01.1994 has recorded that the Appellants has stated at the time of personal hearing that "They have neither imported any duty fee imported replenishment material from M/s U.K. Paint Industries, nor they have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot be made " One fact which emerges is that the impugned goods manufactured and exported by the Appellants were not made out of the imported materials. It is also admitted position that M/s. UK Paint had not claimed any drawback as was certified by Customs Authorities under letter dated 01.10.1992. However, the fact to be ascertained as to whether export of the goods effected through U.K.Paint has been made under DEEC Scheme. The Revenue is claiming that in such circumstances MODVAT Credit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e order of this Tribunal dated 18.12.2002. As per the order, this Tribunal has remanded matter back only for the purpose to ascertain the fact, that whether the export of goods effected through U.K. Paints has been made under DEEC scheme or not, as in such a situation MODVAT Credit cannot be availed. In remand proceedings both the lower authorities have not been examined the said fact. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs Meghdoot Pistons (P) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00 and observed as under: It is clear from the above clarification of the Board that refund of MODVAT credit or Cenvat Credit (Central Excise Duty) has no relation to grant of drawback relatable to customs duties. It is also seen from the drawback dated 2001-2002 produced by the Ld. Counsel that the drawback rate under SI. No. 84.63 for Aluminium pistons/Piston Assembly is ₹ 4.00 per Kg. towards Customs duty. Thus, the benefit to the merchant-exporter was relatable only to Customs duty and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndigenously and in the manufacturer of soaps exported under Bond under the DEEC Scheme were entitled to modvat credit in as much as export under DEEC/under para 347(1) of Hand Book of Export Procedure 1990-93 stipulated that advance licence can be granted only if the assessee, has not availed of the relief of the Credit of duty paid on material originally used in the manufacture of goods under Modvat Scheme. It was also alleged that since the assessee had taken modvat credit in respect of duty p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

admissible to phosphoric acid. It was also alleged that for caustic soda 1ye, no duty paying document was produced and therefore, modvat credit on caustic soda 1ye was admissible." In these facts, this Tribunal observed as under: "On careful consideration of the submissions and the evidence on record, we find that inputs as well as the finished products are specidied products under Rule 57A. We also observe that requisition declaration was filed in respet of the inputs under 57 G. 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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