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

M/s. Cadila Health Care Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad.

2016 (7) TMI 354 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Condonation of delay in filing revision application - Rejection of rebate/ rebate claim over and above FOB value - export of goods - ground of dis-allowance of appeal is that the assessable value was more than correct FOB value and therefore, there was excess payment of duty and excess rebate could not sanctioned by the adjudicating authority to the extent of said excess payment of ₹ 1,16,603/- Held that:- On perusal of the same, Government notes that the details contained therein does not .....

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 is on the applicant who has failed to show sufficient cause that prevented him from filing Revision Application within stipulated period of three months. The Revision Application has been made contrary to the provisions of Section 35EE (2) and is, therefore, liable for rejection. - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.195/407/12-RA - ORDER NO. 24/2016-CX - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by M/S Cadila Health Care Ltd., agai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

id Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that while disallowing the rebate claim of ₹ 11,66,03/-, the original authority had not mentioned any reasons During the course of Personal Hearing the Commissioner (Appeals) took note of the applicant's submission that there is difference in FOB value and value shown in ARE-I and the same is due to freight and insurance and accordingly, held that the original authority rightly rejected part rebate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent of said excess payment of ₹ 1,16,603/-. This being the position, even though Applicant has claimed rebate of duty paid on the CIF value instead of FOB value of each the consignment covered, an exporter is entitled to rebate of the entire duty of excise paid on a consignment of excisable goods on its export. 4.2 In the premises, below mentioned judgement of Honorable, Tribunal has clearly reveals that Applicant is entitled for the rebate of whole of the duty paid by him on export of 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

ness of assessment but should examine only the admissibility of rebate of the duty paid on the export covered by a claim. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 06.07.2015, 2407.2015 and 17.08.2015. The applicant vide letter dated 03.082015 received on 11.08.2015 informed that the matter be decided on merits and the personal hearing. Nobody from department attended the hearing. Hence Government proceeds to decide the case on the basis of available records. 6. Government has carefully .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

excess of FOB value and hence, is not admissible. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. The applicant has also filed on application for condonation of delay for delay of 4 days in filing Revision Application. 8. Government first proceeds to decide the issue of limitation in filing of Revision Applications after the stipulated three months period under Section 35 EE (2) of Central Ex .....

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 within three months from the date of the communication to the applicant of the order against which the application is being made: Provided that the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months, Further Rule 10(2) of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 provides as under. "The revision application se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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