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 Inglobe Exports, Mumbai. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-Il

2016 (7) TMI 981 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Condonation of delay in filing revision application - Availing duty drawback while getting rabte/ refund of duty paid on export of goods - Applicants submit that the exporters are eligible for "Duty Drawback" on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods if the same is covered in the Customs & Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules 1995 at the rate prescribed in the drawback schedule. They are also eligible for "Rebate of duty paid on the final products" as these are the two sets of incentives 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

ntion that as they had posted the application on the last day of the stipulated 3 months period, no condonation of delay is required. The applicant has also failed to give any documentary evidences to justify that there were sufficient cause, which prevented them from filing Revision Application in stipulated time in support of their claim for the delay in filing of the Revision Application. - Revision application rejected - Decided against the applicant. - F.NO. 195/595/12-RA - ORDER NO. 60/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ith Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The rebate was allowed to the applicant. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that as the applicant has availed drawback, allowing rebate will amount to double benefit, which is not allowed. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed department's appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 35 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y paid on the final products" simultaneously. This view is not supported by any legal submission. Applicants submit that the exporters are eligible for "Duty Drawback" on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods if the same is covered in the Customs & Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules 1995 at the rate prescribed in the drawback schedule. They are also eligible for "Rebate of duty paid on the final products" as these are the two sets of incentives covered under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

' in rejecting the rebate claim, which is legally not sustainable and therefore, order is liable to be quashed & set aside. 4.2 It is very clear from the condition (6) of Notification No.84/2010-Cus(NT) dated 17.09.2010 that where the rate shown is same, it shall mean that the same relates to only customs component and the rebate is available irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of Cenvat or not. Commissioner simply brushed aside this submission stating that the judgement of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was also decided by Reversionary Authority in the case of Benny Impex Pvt Ltd-2003(154) ELT 300(GOI). 4.5 Applicants submit that the Asstt. Commissioner had passed subsequent claims filed by the applicants and all other assesses. However only this claim was rejected without recording any cogent findings and merely stating that it is for the applicants to prove that the statement submitted are correct. Applicant submits authorities are not following the consistent system of passing the rebate as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on Application was dispatched on 09.06.2012, which was well within 3 months and hence condonation of delay is not applicable. 6. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 08.07.2015, 05.08.2015 and 02.09.2015. Hearing held on 02.09.2015 was attended by Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of revision application. The Department vide their written reply dated 31.08.2015 mainly reiterated contents of impugned Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government has carefull .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entioned in para (4) above. 9. At the outset, Government observes that the Revision Application has been filed beyond stipulated period of three months. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was received by the applicant on 15.03.2012 and the Revision Application was filed on 28.06.2012. The applicant was required to file Application for condonation of delay. The applicant has submitted that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was received by them on 15.03.2012. The revision application against the said order w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the applicant of the order 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 d .....

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