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 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2nd Floor, Chinuhai Centre, Off. Nehru Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009 Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II

2016 (7) TMI 806 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

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. - Held that:- Government notes that the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Receipt is concerned, the applicant contended tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arance 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 Central Excise (Appeals-Il), Mumbai, with respect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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.4/2006-CE(NT) dated 01.032006 as against 10% unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellants 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 undertaking for submission, as based on such submission, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

son 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 with (i) container No. TRLU 1777965 seal No.545386 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 support of their argument in the present appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me 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 claim in cash based on the FOB Value, the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

04 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 Medicaments of the same Heading 3004 of the First Schedul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, 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 Shipping Bill No.7122464 dated 26.02.2009. Since t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eipt 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 India in complete compliance of all the applicable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ipping 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 the view that the proof of export cannot be 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

nal 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) upheld the impugned Orders-in-Original. Now, the app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ricted 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. 8.2 As regards restricting the rebate to duty @5. .....

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