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 →

Apar Industries (Polymer Division) Versus Union of India

2015 (12) TMI 1255 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Denial of rebate claims - export of goods - defect in the original application - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Admitted facts are that the petitioner had made necessary declarations in format of Annexure-19 which is prescribed under Rule 19 of the said Rules. Along with it, the petitioner had also supplied documents of proof of export and for that rebate would be made. We notice that Rule 18 of the said Rules pertains to rebate of duty and provides for rebate claims by following the procedure .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nment of India prescribe any procedure for claiming rebate and provide for any specific format for making such rebate applications. The Department, therefore, should have treated the original applications /declarations of the petitioner as rebate claims. Whatever defect, could have been asked to be cured. When the petitioner re-presented such rebate applications in correct form, backed by necessary documents, the same should have been seen as a continuous attempt on part of the petitioner to see .....

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 : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by the Government of India, copy of which is produced at Annexure-I to the petition, in following background:- 1.1 Petitioner is a manufacturer exporter. Petitioner had exported various goods so manufactured by it after payment of duty, of which the petitioner was entitled to take rebate. The case of the petitioner is that the rebate claims were filed between October 2007 to February 2008, h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner re-presented them in December 2008 with necessary supporting documents. These applications were treated by the Department as time barred and rebate claims were rejected. The issue finally reached the Government of India. By the revisional order, impugned in this petition, the decisions of the authorities were affirmed. Hence, this petition. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Gupta for the petitioner raised twofold contentions. Firstly he contended that the petitioner filed rebate claims well in time. .....

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 Rule 18 prescribe any time limit. The Department, therefore, committed an error in reading the limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act as one applicable to the rebate claims. 4. Learned Counsel Shri Oza for the Department submitted that the rebate claims properly made by the petitioner were admittedly beyond period of one year and were therefore rejected by the Department as time barred. 5. Admitted facts are that the petitioner had made necessary declarations in format of .....

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