Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CC, Chennai Versus M/s. MedreichSterilab Ltd.

2015 (11) TMI 30 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Refund of differential duty - Import of Chlorohydrate Aniodorone – Benefit claimed under notification No. 21/2003 – Revenue contends that as per customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996, Rule 3 regulation stipulates that manufacturer has to obtain a registration and has to file an application to obtain benefit and importer has misrepresented facts as they had already imported and cleared the material on payment of duty on merits – Assessee contends they claimed refund under Sl.No. 80B and are also covered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

favour of assessee. - C/23/2005 - FINAL ORDER: 41210 / 2015 - Dated:- 27-8-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the respondent : Shri N. Anand, Adv., ORDER Per: P.K. Choudhary In this case the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide OIA C.Cus. No. 641/2004 dated 31.08.2004 had allowed the assessees appeal with consequential benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has observed that the im .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Chlorohydrate Aniodorone and cleared the goods filed under the Bill of Entry No. 550344 dated 28.06.2003. On assessment under CTH 29329900 and padi duty @ 25%+16%+4% and paid ₹ 18,84,953/-. Later on the assessee claimed that they were eligible for concessional rate of duty @ 5% under Sl.No. 80(B) of Customs Notification No. 21/2003 dated 01.03.2003 (Sl.No. 3 of list 3) and filed the refund claim of ₹ 16,99,426/-. The respondent assessee further claimed that due to non-availability .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of duty for manufacture of excisable goods )Rules, 1996 and Condition No.5 of Customs Notification No. 21/2003. Aggrieved by the above OIO the importer preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide OIA, C.Cus. 641/2004 dated 31.08.2004 allowed the appeal by annulling the order in original. 4. Ld. AC, AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and filed copies of Notification No. 36/96-Cus (N.T) dated 23.07.1996 as amended of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manuf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of appeal has mentioned that It therefore appears that the importers have misrepresented the facts before the Central Excise Authorities by stating the the intend to import the material (in future), whereas they had already imported and cleared the material on payment of duty on merits. The Ld.AR relied on the following decisions in this regard. 1. Samtel Color Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut 2000 (126) ELT 1256 (Tri.) 2. CCE, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal 2010 (260) ELT 3 (S.C.) 5. The Ld. Counsel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

only a procedural requirement. He relied on the following decisions: 1. CIPLA Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2007 (218) ELT 547 (Tri.-Chen.) 2. CCE, Chandigarh-I Vs. J.C.T. Electronics Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 41 (P & H) 6. On hearing both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the Bill of Entry No. 550344 was filed on 28.06.2003, and the imported consignment was cleared on 30.06.2003. Registration under Rule 3 was done on 14.07.2003 and the application under Rule 4 was filed on 18.07.2003. All 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

f Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise} having jurisdiction over his factory. (2) The registration shall contain particulars about the name and address of the manufacturer, the excisable goods produced in his factory, the nature and description f imported goods used in the manufacture of such goods. (3) The {Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise} shall issue a certificate to the manufacturer indicating the particulars referred to 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

n such import and the port of import. (1A) The manufacturer may, at his option, file the application specified under sub-rule (1), either in respect of a particular consignment, or indicating his estimated requirement of such goods (for a period not exceeding one year). (2) The manufacturer shall also give undertaking on the application that the imported goods shall be used for the intended purpose. (3) The application shall be countersigned by the {Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or De .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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