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 USV Ltd., Mumbai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Raigad.

2016 (7) TMI 655 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Rebate / refund claim - applicant exported the goods procured from the manufacturer and filed rebate claim - original authority rejected the rebate claims filed by the applicant on the ground that the declaration given at Sr.No.3(a)(b) & (c) is incomplete. - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed findings with regard to factual aspect of each AREs-1 and observed that there has been mismatch in details given in AREs-1 and Shipping Bill with regard to quantum of duty/quantity of goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

RDER: This revision application is filed by applicant M/S USV Ltd., Mumbai, against the Order-in-Appeal No.US/236/RGD/2012 dated 164.12 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-Il), Mumbai with regard to Order-in-Original No.540/1112/Deputy Commissioner (Rebate)/Raigad dated 30.6.11 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigad. 2. M/S. USV Limited, Mumbai is merchant exporter, who had procured excisable goods from the manufacturer. The applicant exported 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

peals) who rejected the appeal and upheld impugned Order-in Original. 4. Now, being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application before Central Government under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 mainly on the following grounds: 4.1 The Original Order to the extent-disallowing rebate of ₹ 52,218/- was passed without giving any reasons for rebate claims at Sr no 2 and 3 for ₹ 40,938/- and ₹ 2004/- respectively, needs to be set asid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

turer had filed Form ARE-I for removing the duty paid excisable goods for export to countries other than Nepal & Bhutan. This by itself means that applicants had filed rebate claim under Notification No.19/2004 CE (NT) dt. 6-9-2004, as amended Merely not canceling the relevant portion in the certificate in ARE-I should not be the reason for denying the substantive export benefit for rectifiable procedural mistake. This is more so when no show cause notice was given and chance to rectify 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

dt. 26.06.2001 and Notification No.41/2001 CE (NT) dt. 26.06.2001, should be the reason for rejecting the otherwise valid rebate claim. The said notifications otherwise provide for getting duty free inputs or rebate of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of goods exported. In this case, excise duty was paid on final goods exported & rebate claim was of excise duty paid on final goods & not inputs. Further this mistake could have been rectified if an opportunity was given by the rebat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ave denied the rebate on this basis & on the basis that ARE-I were lost without appreciating the Affidavit & undertaking given in this regards. The basis of denial was totally different from the basis taken by the adjudicating Authority in absence of any show cause notice. Thus the impugned order needs to be set aside. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 03.08.2015 & 24008.2015. None appeared for hearing. Applicant party vide letter dated 19.8.15 has stated that they ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iled this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government notes that the applicant's rebate claims were rejected on ground no incomplete declaration at S.No.3(a)(b) & (c) of AREs-1. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the factual aspects of all the AREs-1 and observed in relevant para as under: "I have gone through the case records and considered the averments made in the appeal. In the instant case, the appellants had filed three refund claims showing 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

 

 

 

 

 

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