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 Xomox Sanmar Ltd., Viralimalai Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tiruchirapally.

2016 (7) TMI 865 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

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 cannot be ignored. While claiming the rebate u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 & Spares-falling under Chapter 84818030 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

res. 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 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, ordered fo .....

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 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 applicants failed to file adequate explanation for 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

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 compliance is sufficient where factum of export i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elevant 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 applicant has filed this Revision Application o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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-attested copy of which is required to be filed with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r 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 by Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras i .....

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