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

2015 (9) TMI 1326 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 1326 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 245 (Mad.) - Denial of rebate claim - export of duty paid goods (Sugur) from warehouse - petitioner has not complied with the conditions and procedure of Notification No. 40/2001- CE(N.T) dated 26.06.2001 - Held that:- Benefit envisaged by the notification No.294/10/1997-CE, dated 30.1.1997 was in the nature of a concession to which any exporter is entitled however it is subject to the strict compliance with the conditions mentioned there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty paid character of the goods exported remained unsubstantiated.

Petitioner has committed serious lapses and miserably failed to comply with the conditions of the notification and the very basic condition that the goods cleared on payment of duty for home consumption are the same which were subsequently exported through the shipping bills and thereby it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the goods exported are the same which were cleared on payment of duty and this corequireme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcise (Appeals), Coimbatore rejecting the rebate claims, came to be dismissed, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner company is a Co-operative society functioning under the control of Government of Tamil Nadu and engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar, which is an excisable commodity. It appeared that the petitioner cleared 5000 sugar in 100 kgs bags on payment of duty of ₹ 42,50,000/- and ₹ 17,00,000/- under cover of invoice and the same .....

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 ₹ 17,00,000/-. By orders, dated 5.5.2004 and 7.5.2004, the second respondent herein rejected the said applications. Aggrieved by the rejection of the applications, the petitioner preferred first appeals in Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2004 before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which were also rejected by him by order dated 13.9.2004. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed two revision applications before the first respondent. By the impugned order, dated 19.6.2006, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid by the petitioner, however, though the petitioner produced satisfactory documentary evidence to show that re-packing of sugar into 50 kg bags was done at Tuticorin Port in the presence of customs officials, the respondents pointing out certain procedural infractions, ought not to have rejected the legitimate claim of the petitioner, which is a substantive benefit, in the interest of export promotion. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in 2006(2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ELT 437 (SC) has held that Distinction to be made between procedural condition of technical nature and a substantive condition-Non observation of Former condonable while that of the latter not condonable as likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences . 4. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Suprem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the exemption clause then it being in nature of exception is to be construed strict and against the subject but once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction .... (Emphasis supplied by their Lordships). [para 12] 5. The Government has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions along with cited judgments and also perused the orders passed by the lo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ave been exported through the merchant exporter under bond in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2001 and exported through merchant exporation viz., ISVC via Tuticorin Port under Bond in terms of provisions of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules 2001 and prepared ARE - 1 and other export documents and that the petitioner exported same goods subsequently through the merchant exporter which were earlier cleared on payment of Central Excise Duty from the place of production. It is also noted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er noted by the Government that the petitioner has not repacked the goods in 50 kgs bags from 100 kgs bags in supervision of any authorised agency. 6. It is no doubt true that the benefit envisaged by the notification No.294/10/1997-CE, dated 30.1.1997 was in the nature of a concession to which any exporter is entitled however it is subject to the strict compliance with the conditions mentioned therein. On a perusal of the entire record as well as the impugned order passed by the authorities, th .....

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