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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-Ill Versus M/s. United Enterprises, Mumbai.

2016 (7) TMI 866 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Condonation of delay - department has filed these revision application 4 days after initial stipulated three months period - Rebate / refund claim - export of goods - The original authority rejected the rebate claim for simultaneously claiming two benefits viz input credit and drawback claim, which are not admissible to them. - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal holding that as the applicant availed only customs portion of drawback, rebate in admissible to them. - Held that:- Government .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ow cause for not filing application is on the applicant who has failed to show sufficient cause that prevented him from filing Revision Application within stipulated period of three months. The Revision Application has been made contrary to the provisions of Section 35EE (2) and is, therefore, liable for rejection. - Decided against the revenue. - F.No.198/84/2012-RA - ORDER NO. 34/2016-CX - Dated:- 10-2-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which were exported by them. The original authority rejected the rebate claim for simultaneously claiming two benefits viz input credit and drawback claim, which are not admissible to them. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed appeal holding that as the applicant availed only customs portion of drawback, rebate in admissible to them. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

porter shall declare, and if necessary, establish to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Central. Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, that no Cenvat facility has been availed for any of the inputs or input services used in the manufacture of export product; (ii) If the goods are exported under Bond or claim of rebate of duty of central excise, a certificate from the Superintenden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the prescribed form that such manufacturers are not registered with central excise and at they do not avail/ have not availed Cenvat facility. In the case of manufacturers and supporting manufacturers who are registered with Central excise, the fact of non-availment of Cenvat facility shall continue to be confirmed from the ARE-I filed by them. 4.3 In the instant case, the claimant has submitted details of duty payment particulars made from the manufacturer's Cenvat credit balance account .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

les, 1995. Hence, party can avail only one benefit either input credit or drawback claim. Thus, simultaneous availment of two benefits is not admissible to them. 4.5 In view of above, M/S. United Enterprises by claiming rebate of duty paid on the exported goods when they have also claimed duty drawback with the Customs Authorities as per Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, the claimant have knowingly claimed both the benefits of rebate of duty as well as duty drawback with 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

alf of the respondent and apart from reiterating contents of impugned orders, relied upon various judgment of Government of India in their favour. The department also filed an application dated 24.03.2015 for condonation of delay for condonation of 4 days in filing appeal beyond three months initial stipulated period, on the following grounds: 6.1 The Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai-111, Mumbai Zone-Il decided the appeal in favour of the claimant vide Order-in-Appeal No. BC/291/M-III/2011-12 date .....

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 by this office on 04.05.2012 by Speed Post A.D (within three months from the date of receipt of the impugned order), it appears that, the said Revision Application has received in the office of the Joint Secretary, GOI, New Delhi late by 26 days. The delay of 4 days is due to postal delay even though the Revision Application was sent by Speed Post. Further, due to large number of Order-in-Originals and Appellate Orders, the review section of the Commissionerate was highly overburdened during 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

t filed appeal against the Order-in-Original and the Commissioner (Appeals) allow the appeal. Now, the applicant department has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 9. Government first proceeds to decide the issue of limitation in filing of Revision Applications after the stipulated three months period under Section 35 EE (2) of Central Excise Act 1944, as the applicant department has filed these revision application 4 days after initial stipulated three months .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der against which the application is being made: Provided that the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months." Further Rule 10(2) of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 provides as under: "The revision application sent by registered post under sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to have been submitt .....

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