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 →

M/s. Jagdamba Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

2016 (3) TMI 223 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Rejection of refund claim - export of goods - non following of prescribed procedure - period of limitation - Held that:- Appellants filing declaration intimating the export of goods manufactured during the year can be considered as sufficient fulfillment of the procedure in view of the appellant being SSI unit involved in 100% export. Regarding input/output norms, we find that same is not fixed by the Asstt. Commissioner for the impugned period, the appellants followed the adopted norms as per D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

prior verification of the goods by the officers. The cleared goods have been exported and all the relevant customs clearance documents have been filed. These are not in dispute. The appellants also filed further evidence of bank realization documents certifying regular receipt of sale proceeds of exported goods.

Thus we find that the substantial benefit of refund claim cannot be rejected in the present case. However, the claims which is filed beyond the period prescribed in section 11 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

HANDRAN: The appellant is before us against the order dated 21.3.2005 of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the rejection of refund claim filed by them by the original authority. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel cutlery, tableware, kitchenware etc. They filed 4 refund claims on 11.3.2003 seeking refund of Cenvat credit for four quarters starting from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 in terms of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o, procurement of raw material, removal of goods for export, actual export and presentation of claim for rebate. It was submitted that except for filing ARE 2 and fixation of input output ratio at the point of clearance of goods, there is no procedural infirmity in their exports. They were clearing goods for export under self-removal procedure and the ARE 2 has to be filed within 24 hours of the removal of goods from the factory. This will show that this is only an intimation and not an obligati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

department, they have submitted that they are manufacturing of stainless steel kitchenware, tableware using duty paid inputs and were exporting 100% of their production. They were registered with the Central Excise department during the period 18.3.2002 to 21.8.2002. Non-registration for the whole period of refund claim can at best be called a procedural lapse. This cannot be a reason for rejection of the otherwise eligible claim. They have relied on various case laws in support of their claim t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2. Learned AR, on the other hand, reiterated the finding of the lower authorities and stated that the appellants are not eligible for refund due to their failure to follow the stipulated procedure. 3. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 4. It was admitted fact of the case that the appellants did export the impugned goods manufactured using duty paid inputs. Their claim for refund is rejected only on failure to follow certain procedure laid down. While examining the same it has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion of claim of party. Relying on the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. [1997 54 ELT 470 (SC)], the learned Commissioner (Appeals) summarily concluded that the concessional claim can be availed only in the manner prescribed therein and on fulfillment of the conditions specified in the notification for the purpose. The show cause notice alleged that the appellants have not given due declaration about the manufacture. The appellants have made intimation to the department on .....

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