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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh Il Versus M/s Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited.

2016 (7) TMI 228 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Recovery of Rebate/ refund granted earlier - input stage rebate under Rule 18 had been granted to the respondent based on input output declaration which was subsequently found to be incorrect - respondent had mis-declared that the waste obtained would not be reprocessed/recycled further to obtain menthol which led to wrong fixation of the input output norm 1.250 kg DMO 1.000 kg menthol by the Division Office which effect was required to be fixed as 1:1 as the respondent was recycling/reprocessin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctly re-fixed as 1:1 to which the respondent had agreed vide letter dated 17.02.2011. Thereafter, the rebate sanctioned on the basis of the earlier fixation of norms has been appealed against. Thus the order of appellate authority is not proper as it did not take into consideration the mis-representation of facts by the respondent to avail excess monetary benefit and subsequent re-fixing of input output norms. - Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal without taking 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

- Matter remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration - Decided in favor of revenue. - F.No.198/179-186/12-RA - ORDER NO. 02-09/2016-CX - Dated:- 11-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-ll (hereinafter referred to as Department applicant) against the Order in-Appeal No. 86-93/CE/Appl/CHD-11/2011 dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cking material) and cleared consignment of menthol (CETH 29061100 and exported vide Notification No. 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 as amended vide Notification No. 4/2008 dated 01.03.2008) for export and after exportation of goods filed rebate claims of duty paid on inputs under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as per provisions of Notification No, 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 read with Part V of Chapter 8 of CBEC Supplementary Instructions Manual. 2.2. The respondent had earlier filed declara .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terpenelss. 2.3. The respondent filed rebate claims therefore of duty paid on excisable materials used in the manufacture of export goods, before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Derabassi who sanctioned the rebate claims vide impugned Orders-In-Original R-1804-1811/DB/2010 dated 16.112010. 2.4. To verify whether recoverable waste is being processed to obtain Menthol or not by the respondent, a team of preventive officers, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-ll visited 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

ocessed/recycled further to obtain menthol which led to wrong fixation of the input output norm 1.250 kg DMO 1.000 kg menthol by the Division Office which effect was required to be fixed as 1:1 as the respondent was recycling/reprocessing the mother liquor and other wastes to obtain further menthol. Subsequently, the respondent had themselves voluntarily agreed to vide their letter dated 17.02.2011 that rebate be sanctioned as per the norms 1 kg de-terpinated mentha Oil to 1 kg menthol and accor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which led to wrong fixation of the input output norm ration of 1.25 :1 instead of 1.00:1 by the Division office and had fraudulently taken more rebate in cash to the extent of 20%. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his common Order-in-Appeal No. 86-93/CE/Appl/CHD-II/2011 dated 29.02.2012 upheld the impugned Order-in-Original ibid and rejected the appeals filed by the revenue. 4.Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-In-Appeal, the department has filed this revision applications under Section 35 EE 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

crystals vide C No. V(Misc)Rebate/Notifi 21/04/DB/2/2009/1121 dated 04.03.2011. 4.2. That Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has not considered the fact and circumstances which led to re-fixation of input output norms subsequently as 1:1 and grossly erred in simply rejecting the appeals of the Department/Revenue. That Shri Ram Ashish Yadav, Deputy Manager (Production) and Shri Vinod Rana, Deputy Manager Commercial in their statement dated 09202.2011 has admitted that they do not have any stock .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the Division Office which subsequently correctly re-fixed as 1:1 vide letter ibid. That the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper as he ignored both on the record established fact of, in the first place, adopting fraudulent practices by the respondent to get excess monetary benefit and secondly, re-fixation of input output norms. 5.Personal hearing scheduled 'in this case on 10.0812015. The department applicant made a reply dated 12.09.2012 reiterating the grounds of revision app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and has fixed input output norms for the final product namely Menthol as well as Menthol Crystals. 5.2. That the present case was constructed on the issue that the permission order dated 1%08.2009 did not cover menthol crystals for the input stage rebate. That neither in the Show Cause Notice nor in the Order-in-Original nor in Order-in-Appeal there was any dispute with regard to input output ratio fixed vide permission order dated 9.08.2009 thus the present revi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

much after the re-fixation of input output ratio correctly as 1:1 vide letter dated 04.032011. That the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an order which is unjust and legally improper to the extend it grants rebate of duty pain on inputs ibid on the basis of input output norms as 1.250:1 fixed and permitted by the Department under C No. V (Misc)Rebate/Notfn.21/04/DB/2/2009/ dated 19.08.2009. 5.4. That the Revenue failed to understand the true nature and reason for the filing the same. That it w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s also causing prejudice to their commercial interest, hence it was requested that the rebate claims may be immediately allowed as per input output ratio of 1 kg DMO : 1 kg menthol on a condition that the Show Cause Notice may be dropped and the rebate claims that are pending for the sanction may be allowed immediately as they were in need of refund money. 5.5. The party has relied on the following case laws: M/S Ispat Industries Ltd vs CC 236 (Tri) CCE vs Carrier Aircon Ltd 2005 (184) ELT 113 ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peal. Now the department has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para 4 above 8.Government further observes that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the ground taken by Revenue that mother liquor was used in the factory to obtain menthol as per statements of Shri Ram Ashish Yadav, Deputy Manager (Production) and Shri Vinod Rana, Deputy Manager (Commercial) is not corroborated by the evidences available on record and even the copies of the statement of the concerned perso .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Vinod Rana, Deputy Manager (Commercial) in their voluntary statement dated 09.02.2011 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have categorically admitted that as on date they do not have any stock of mother liquor or any type of menthol waste lying in their factory as all the quantity of mother liquor generated during the course of manufacture of menthol since 2008 has been further reprocessed/recycled within their factory to obtain menthol and cleared. These copies of statements were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d at any stage. In this regard Government places reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Sukhwani Vs Union of India 1996(83) ELT 285(SC) that statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a material piece of evidence collected by the Customs Officials and can be used as substantive evidence. The provision of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is para materia with Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10.Government further finds that in the c .....

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