Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Fichem, Ahmedabad. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad.

2016 (7) TMI 868 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Rebate / refund claim - The applicants contended that the declaration made on as ARE-I was clerical in nature and same may be condoned as a procedural mistake. - applicant failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 as declared by them at Sl.No.3(b) of the impugned ARE-I - Held that:- Once, it has been certified that exported goods have suffered duty at the time of removal, it can be logically implied that provisions of Notification 21/04-C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.06.2001. In this case, there is no dispute regarding export of duty paid goods. - Simply ticking a wrong declaration in ARE-I form cannot be a basis for rejecting the substantial benefit of rebate claim. - However since it is a matter of fact which requires verification in view of rival claims, therefore, the case is remanded back to the original authority to verify the claim of the applicant that they have not availed benefit of Notification 21/04CE(NT) dated 06109.2004 and Notificat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tral Excise (Appeals-Il), Mumbai, with respect to Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants exported the goods and filed rebate claims under Rule 18 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 609.2004 with reference to duty paid on final finished export product. The rebate claim was sanctioned by the original authority after carrying out the verification. The department filed appeal against impugned Or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 applicants contended that the declaration made on as ARE-I was clerical in nature and same may be condoned as a procedural mistake. The ARE-I is an assessment document and after self-assessing the said document, the applicants presented the same to the proper officer. Once the said document is assessed by the applicants, it is not open for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thout availing facility", Actually we could have scored out "availing facility". We do admit our mistake but the mistake-is not so grave that the entire claim which has already been sanctioned should be rejected only on this procedural/clerical mistake. Condition 3(b) provides for claiming Rebate on the inputs utilized in the manufacture of final product. Here it is not the issue of claiming rebate on inputs & lower authority & Commissioner (Appeals) had knowledge that our .....

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 the Commissioner (Appeals) is totally baseless. Looking to the provisions of section 35 of the Central Excise Act 1944 where the period prescribed is 2 months on either side. It is not understood how a period of 03 months have been concluded by him. Moreover order of the lower authority is required to be reviewed by the committee of two Commissioners and thereafter the concerned Commissioner authorize lower authority to file the appeal. No such documents are appearing in the papers supplied b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al of records, Government observes that the applicant's rebate claims filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE/(NT) dated 06.09.2004 was initially sanctioned by the original authority vide impugned Order-in-Original. Being aggrieved by the same the department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the applicant a merchant exporter has declared in impugned ARE-I that they are availing benefit of 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.09 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) against impugned rebate sanctioning Order-in-Original was time barred having been filed after stipulated 2 months period. In this regard Government finds that the appellate authority has dealt with this contention of applicants and held that impugned Order-in-Original was reviewed within 3 (three months) time limit as prescribed in Section 35E (3) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and thereafter, appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) within one month of the date of communication of such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cant has contended that they have mistakenly ticked the declaration on availment of benefit of Notification 21/04 CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and Notification 43/01-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 in AREIs. However, they exported the goods under Notification No. 19/2004-CE/(NT) dated 06.09.2004 on payment of duty and as such they were not required to export the goods under Bond or under cover of ARE-2 as they had not claimed input rebate. 9.1 On perusal of copy of relevant ARE-I, Government finds that the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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