Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 865 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

2016 (7) TMI 865 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - TMI - Rebate / Refund claim - part of the claim rejected on the ground that applicant has not given any explanation for non-filing of Bill of Lading. - Held that:- the applicant relied on the various judgments regarding procedural relaxation on technical grounds. The point which needs to be emphasized is that when the applicant seeks rebate under Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004, which prescribes compliance of certain conditions, the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by M/S Xomox Sanmar Ltd., Viralimalai against the Order-in-Appeal No.206/2012 dated 31108.2012 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 for the manufacture of Industrial Valves .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ertification and Central Excise sealing procedures. The applicants filed a rebate claim on 23.082011 for ₹ 35,086/- under Section 11B 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 6 numbers of ARE-Is during the month of December 2010. The lower authority vide impugned order sanctioned an amount of ₹ 2,18,756/- as rebate in cash under See 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) erred in disallowing the rebate claim in respect of ARE-I N.1736 dated 30.12.2010 on the ground the applicant has not given any explanation for non-filing of Bill of Lading. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) erred in disallowing the rebate claim on the ground the applic .....

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 Department on 23.08.2011. The covering letter and copy of the Bill of lading for the same is also enclosed herewith for your perusal. 4.3 The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in the instant case there is no error from the applicant's end on production of Bill of lading and even assuming if so, it is in the nature of procedural lapses and rebate claim cannot be denied simply on the ground of procedural lapses and rebate cannot be denied since substantive co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 AREs-1 and Air Way Bills and as such, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the goods under the said AREs-1 have been exported. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, 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

of Jaw in the subject matter. Rebate claims in respect of following ARE Is have been rejected by the lower authority for reasons mentioned against each. ARE 1 No and Date Reasons for rejection 1744/31.12.2012 EP copy not produced 1736/31.12.2012 BL not produced 1734/31.12.2012 BL not legible Further, in the findings the lower authority referring to above ARE Is observed that rebate could not be sanctioned for want of documents/aberrations in documents. Bill of lading is a document, a self-attes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is not in doubt. Hence, the order of the lower authority rejecting rebate claim in respect of ARE-1 No. 1736/30.12.2010 is sustainable in law. As regards the remarks 'EP Copy not produced' in respect of ARE 1 No.1744/31.12,2010, it is not the case that the appellant has not filed any copy of Shipping bill with due endorsement' since it was not recorded so in the findings of the impugned order. Substantive compliance is sufficient where factum of export is not in doubt' as held .....

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