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 Xomox Sanmar Ltd., Viralimalai. Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tiruchirapally,

2016 (7) TMI 353 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Rebate/ refund - export of goods - adjudicating authority allowed the same to be taken as Cenvat Credit under respective head as the duty was debited originally in the Cenvat account and ordered rejection of ₹ 2,19/253/- as inadmissible claim in respect of 4 number of ARE-Is. - Held that:- Government observes that the part rebate claims of ₹ 261381/- was rejected on ground that there is huge variation of weight between ARE-Is, and Air Way Bills, the sealing date is not correct in one .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by M/S Xomox Sanmar Ltd., Viralimalai against the Order-in-Appeal No.88/2012 dated 24.052012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapally with respect to Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy 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.AAACX0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of the duties paid on the goods exported under 13 ARE-Is during the month of December 2010. The lower authority vide impugned order sanctioned ₹ 8,74,619/- as rebate in cash under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, ordered excess paid duty of ₹ 62,721/- as liable to be refunded under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in the case of transportation 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 method adopted by the airline for calculating the freight cannot be compared with the actual quantity to conclude the excess or shortage and failed to appreciate that the airline usu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stablished 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. 4.3 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 ARE-I. The Deputy Commissioner of Cus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation. 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 ARE-Is, and Air Way Bills, the sealing date is not correct in one of the ARE-I and the vessel/make, flight No. does not tally with Airwa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

account of the applicant in respect of nine(9) ARE-Is. Regarding remaining four (4) ARE-Is, the original authority rejected part rebate to the tune of ₹ 2,19,253/- on ground that there was discrepancies as regard to flight/vessel date and no. and also in weight between excise documents and export documents. The applicant has challenged this rejection of before Commissioner (Appeals). 9. Government notes that the rejection of above said amount of was on ground of certain discrepancies as re .....

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