Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Original Knit Exports, Tirupur, M/s Knit Media Apparels, Tirupur, M/s Two Win Exports, Tirupur, Ms Puneet Impex, Tirupur M/s Reliance Dyeing works, Tirupur Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Coimbatore.

2016 (6) TMI 69 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Period of limitation - Demand of already sanctioned drawback and imposition of penalty - Applicant were initially granted drawback for exports made by him - Sale proceeds in respect of export made by the applicants were realized within the prescribed time limit through the nominated bank - Appeal filed after 90 days (stipulated initial 60 days period plus 30 days condonable period).

Held that:- as per Section 128 of customs Act, 1962, commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone del .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y can be condoned, the authority cannot extend the same. Government also notes that Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone delay upto 30 days and has no power to allow appeal to be presented beyond the delay 30 days.

The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow 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

1/DBK/13-RA,373/134/DBK/13-RA,373/143/DBK/13-RA373/146/DBK/13-RA,373/147/DBK/13-RA - ORDER NO. 08-12/2016-CUS - Dated:- 11-2-2016 - Rimjhim prasad ORDER These revision applications are filed by applicants as detailed in table below against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals) Coimbatore with respect to Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioners of Customs, ICD, Tirupur/Coimbatore. S. No R.A NO. Applicant Order- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 84/2012-BRS dated 21.07.2012 5. 373/147/DBK/13 M/s Reliance Dyeing works CMB-CEX-000-APP-347/2013 dated 28.10.2013 Sl. No. 75/2012-BRS dated 21.07.2012 2. The common brief facts of the cases are that the applicants were initially granted drawback for exports made by them. subsequently, show cause notices were issued to the applicants for recovery of already sanctioned drawback on the ground that applicants failed to produce the evidence for realization of export proceeds in respect of impugned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e barred as the same were filed after 90 days (i.e. beyond stipulated period of 60 days plus 30 days condonable period). 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-in-appeal, the applicants have filed these revision applications under Section 129 DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The orders passed are not sustainable on merit as the same has been issued on the ground that the export proceeds have not been realized. This is factually incorrect. In 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

king into account factual position of the cases. After issue of show cause notice no action was taken for many years and after several years orders have been passed in haste and without taking reasonable steps to ensure that sufficient opportunities extended the applicants to produce the documents especially when the issue is involving revenue. 4.3 The orders passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority and first appellate Authority are contrary to the facts, devoid of merits and unsustainable. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssue, the Revisionary authority, vide Order No. 51/2013-Cus dated 08/.02.2013 M/s Maestro Fashions, Tirupur vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore, remanded the case back to the original authority for considering the issue afresh. In the present case, the appellant is having the copy of the BRC originals of which were already submitted, applying the ration of the above said order of the government, ends of the justice will be met if the Revisionary authority ordered the origin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal. 7. On perusal of case records, government observes that the original authority confirmed the demand of already sanctioned drawback of the applicant on the grounds that the applicant failed to submit BRC evidencing realization of foreign proceeds with regard to impugned exports against which drawback was sanctioned initially. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the applicant as time barred as the same was filed after 90 days (stipulated initial 60 days period plus 30 days condonabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version