Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 352 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

2016 (7) TMI 352 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - TMI - Rejection of rebate/ refund claim - discrepancies in export/excise documents - the part rebate claims of ₹ 261381/- was rejected on ground that there is huge variation of weight between AREs-1 and Air Way Bills and as such, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the goods under the said AREs1 have been exported. - Held that:- Government notes that neither before original authority nor before Commissioner (Appeals), the applicant could give any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2012 dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapally with respect to Order-In-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Division-Il, Tiruchirapally. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are holders of Central Excise Registration No. AAACX0247KXM001 for the manufacture of industrial valves & spares falling under Chapter 84818030 and 84819090 of the First Schedule to the Central Exc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted an amount of ₹ 8,62,571/- for reasons citing various discrepancies in export/excise documents. The applicant went on appeal to Commr (A) who vide Order-in-Appeal No.66/2012 dated 29.03.2012 directed the lower authority to take fresh decision in respect of claim pertaining to the rejected amount of ₹ 8,62,571/- after following principles of natural justice as the applicants were not issued with Show Cause Notice or offered an opportunity to be heard in person before passing the sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ls), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-In-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) erred in disallowing the rebate claim pertaining to three numbers of ARE-Is on the ground that there is variation in weight mentioned in Shipping bill/Air Way Bill with ARE-I. The Commissioner of Customs and 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

n through air cargo, the air freight is being charged by the airline using their own scientific method of calculation and not based on actual. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the method adopted by the airline for calculating the freight cannot be compared with the actual quantity to conclude the excess or shortage. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the airline usually calculates the charge using a .....

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 invoice is final which can be further established by the fact that the full value of the proceeds have been received for such invoices from the overseas customers, which is also evident from the bank realization certificate (BRC) submitted to RBI. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there is no dispute with reference to the value of goods referred to ARE-I and there is also no dispute on the fact that the applicant has realized the value shown 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

ra Shekhar, Advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of the department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, oral & written submissions and perused the impugned Order-In-Original and Order-In Appeal. 7. Government observes that the part rebate claims of ₹ 261381/- was rejected on ground that there is huge variation of weight between AREs-1 and Air Way Bills and as such, it ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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