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. Tablets India Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chennai

2016 (3) TMI 616 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Rebate claim – non-following of procedure - lapse or willful omission committed - authorities below have not carried out the direction given in terms of para 8 of the judgement - Held that:- The Assistant Commissioner has not doubted the factum of export of final products carried out by the appellant during the period from May, 2000 to Mar. 01. It was also noticed in para 8 by Hon’ble High Court that it is not the case of the authority that there was any other lapse or willful omission committed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). It is expected that the authority carrying out the direction shall dispose the matter within a month of receipt of this order. - E/40434/2014 - Final Order No.40415/2016 - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - SHRI D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri T. Ramesh, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC(AR) ORDER Learned counsel says that in spite of the order of the Hon ble High Court in the case of the appellant reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 191 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder of rejection dated 4-9-2011. The learned standing counsel would only contend that since the power vested with the Assistant Commissioner by way of delegation as early as 1995 has been brought out, the Assistant Commissioner can be directed to pass appropriate orders for grant of rebate since the factum of export is not in controversy. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the above materials placed before this Court, we are convinced that the appe .....

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, the Assistant Commissioner has doubted the factum of export of final products carried out by the appellant during the period from May 2000 to March 2001. In fact the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant before him brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner, discretionary power vested in him that in the event of factum of export he being satisfied with the goods have been exported even if all or any of the conditions laid down in the notifications were not complied with, thec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the goods have in fact been exported, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow, the whole or any part of the claim for such rebate, even if all or any of the conditions laid down in any notification issued under this rule have not been complied with. 8. When we refer to the conditions prescribed in Notification Nos.42/94, dated 21-9-1994 and 47/94, dated 22-9-1994, we find that the requirement in substance to be fulfilled by the manufacturer was that he should file a declaratio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed goods to be exported. As a matter of practice, the appellant being a regular exporter was stated to have been following the prescribed declaration available to Rule 13. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the conditions to be complied with under Notification Nos. 42/94 and 47/94 was in substratum identical and when the factum of export was not in dispute, we are at a loss to understand as to why the Assistant Commissioner failed to exercise the discretionary power vested in him under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, his failure to exercise the discretionary power vested in him in the absence of any other valid reasons cannot be sustained. For the very same reason, the orders of the Appellate Authority viz., the first respondent, who have also failed to examine the said position cannot be justified. Therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition as well as the Order-in-Original No.14/2001, dated 4-9-2001 are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same are set aside. We therefore, direct the Assis .....

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