GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 806 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

2016 (7) TMI 806 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - TMI - Rebate/ refund claim - export of goods - in one case the container number and seal numbers on various export documents were not tallying; in the other case the date of Mate Receipt was 0502.2009 and as per the endorsement of the Custom Officer, the goods had been exported on 05.02.2009 itself whereas the corresponding ARE-I was dated 28.02.2009 and the Shipping Bill was dated 26102.2009. The rebate claim was also rejected for non-submission of BRCs. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd to duty paid on FOB value, Government finds that in catena of its judgments, it has been held that rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of duty i.e. 4% in terms of Notification No.4/06-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended, as applicable on the relevant date on the transaction value of exported goods determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Ratio of said judgments will be applicable to this case also. - As regards the issue of date of Mates 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

goods could not have been exported prior to clearance from factory and rebate is liable for rejection on this ground alone. - Revision application rejected - Decided against the revision applicant. - F.No.195/496-497/13-RA - ORDER NO. 48-49/2016-CX - Dated:- 10-3-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: These revision applications are filed by the applicant M/S Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., against Order-in-Appeal No.876-877/RGD/2012 dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Cen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

seal numbers on various export documents were not tallying; in the other case the date of Mate Receipt was 0502.2009 and as per the endorsement of the Custom Officer, the goods had been exported on 05.02.2009 itself whereas the corresponding ARE-I was dated 28.02.2009 and the Shipping Bill was dated 26102.2009. The rebate claim was also rejected for non-submission of BRCs. The original authority also held that rebate claims are admissible on FOB value on 4% duty payable under Notification No.4/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rement of Bank Realization Certificate, the Appellants stated that the Respondents themselves have clearly specified the list of documents to be submitted along with the rebate claim. This list is as per CBECs instructions. Any other documents therefore are not required to establish the exports. However, as the Respondents have clearly specified his requirements for the BRC, it's the tendency of the exporters to submit the undertaking. Accordingly, the appellants have submitted the undertaki .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

im is thus squashed. This is for the simple reason that the customer of the Appellants have received the goods and released the payment. Since the goods have reached the destination, the export is established 4.1.2 That the total number of cartoon & pallets mentioned in ARE-I No.715 dated 30.06.2011 is also tallied with the number of cartons as shown in Shipping Bill No.4364618 dated 01.07.2012. Only the container No. shown in B/L is HLXU 8701879 with seal Nos.00195, which is not tallied wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rove that goods covered vide ARE-I No.960 dated 23.08.2010 are excise duty paid goods. 4.1.5 The applicants fully understand that the core aspect in determination of rebate claim is the fact of manufacture and payment of duty thereon and its subsequent export. Since the fundamental requirement is complied with, other attendant procedural requirements can be condoned and should not be the ground for the rejection of rebate claim. 4.1.6 In addition, the applicants rely on the following decision 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

Appellants submit the certified copy of the same to establish that the goods exported vide Export Invoice No 4011101061 dated 29.06.2011, shipping Bill no, 4364618 dated 01.07.2011. Have reached the clients of the appellants have released the payment to the appellants. Thus the entire chapter of the goods exported is closed. On this ground itself, the appellants pray to condon the lapse for non-submission of 1st page of ARE No. 960 dated 23.08.2010. 4.1.8 On the issue of Sanction of rebate clai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under: In respect of Medicaments of Heading, 3004 of the First Schedule to the said Tariff Act, the Indian Parliament has floated two different Notifications, namely, (1) Notification 4/2006-CE., dated 01.03.2006, with Serial Entry No. 62-C, where under, Medicaments of Heading, 3004 of the First Schedule to the said Tariff Act, are chargeable to total Central Excise Duty of 4.12% ad valorem and (2) Notification, 2/2008-C.E. dated 01.03,2008, with Serial Entry No. 21, where under, same Medicament .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons, in respect of same finished excisable goods, it is upto the Central Excise Assessee, to choose one which is most beneficial to him for a given Consignment of the finished excisable good. 4.2 Grounds of RA.No.195/497/13-RA 4.2.1 The same number of 46 packages weighing 8154.324 kgs are mentioned in export and excise documents. Unfortunately, both the copies of ARE-I were endorsed with incorrect date of Mates Receipt as 05.022009 as the Mates Receipt No. 154 dated 05.02.2009 was issued for Shi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y have agreed to the mistake and fresh Mate Receipt No.154 dated 05.03.2009 was issued. 4.2.3 Since the payments of goods covered vide Shipping Bill No.7122464 dated 26.02.2009 was realized and the applicants submitted the Certified True copy of the Bank Realization. Certificate. Thus with above submission that applicants have produced that there is complete identity and linkage to prove that the very same goods which are cleared under ARE-I No. 942 dated 28.022009 have been exported out of Indi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

RE-I that goods were exported under relevant Shipping Bill Nos. Similarly, the Custom Officers has mentioned the No./Date of ARE-I in the Shipping Bill confirming that goods pertaining to ARE-I are exported vide said Shipping Bill. Department has not disputed these facts. Thus in fact there is no dispute about the export of said goods, except incorrect endorsement on Original and Duplicate copy of ARE-I about the date of mates Receipt and the Date of Mate Receipt. Therefore the Appellants are 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

015 on behalf of applicant. None attended personal hearing on behalf of respondent department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the original authority has held that rebate is admissible only on duty payable @4% on FOB value as against @10%, as claimed by the applicant and that rebate claim is inadmissible on account of certain discrepancies. Commissioner (Appeals) uphel .....

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 that admissible rebate claim needs to be restricted to FOB value. 8.1 Government notes that the applicant failed to give any plausible explanation with regard to above said discrepancies in container No. and Seal No. Further, no amendments have been made for correction of Seal No. and Container No. in relevant documents. As such, in absence of any such specific explanation, other submissions of the applicant fall flat to establish that goods cleared from factory have been actually exported. 8. .....

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