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 Abhedya Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner C.C.E & ST, Hyderabad-III (Vece-Versa)

2016 (7) TMI 1113 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Refund - appellant preferred a refund claim of duty on the ground that for the clearance of BOPP film to M/s Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd against invalidated DFIA they are not liable to pay any duty in terms of Notification No.44/2001-CE(NT) dated 26-06-2001. - Held that:- the contention of the appellant that even if they are not eligible under Notification No.44/2001 they could be given benefit of 43/2001 is therefore misconceived and unacceptable, since it is not the case of appellant that they had app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A customer of the appellant namely M/s Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd. was holding Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) and got the same invalidated by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade in favor of the appellant for procurement of Aluminium Metalized BOPP film. Based on the said invalidated DFIA, the appellant had obtained advance authorization for deemed exports. The appellant manufactured and supplied the BOPP film to the said customer without payment of duty 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

customer against such invalidated DFIA on payment of duty during the period from 29-01-2008 to 31-03-2008, which totaled to ₹ 6,92,787/- 2. On, 19-01-2009, the appellant preferred a refund claim of duty of ₹ 18,97,731/- on the ground that for the clearance of BOPP film to M/s Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd against invalidated DFIA they are not liable to pay any duty in terms of Notification No.44/2001-CE(NT) dated 26-06-2001. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, rejected the refu .....

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(Appeals) Hyderabad who vide his, Order-in-Appeal No. 12/2010(H-lll) dated 28-05-2010 set aside thy rejection of the refund claim on account of limitation and unjust enrichment by the lower authority but however, upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the ground that Notification No.44/2001-CE(NT) did not cover goods cleared against invalidated DFIA and moreover, the procedure prescribed under the said Notification also has not been complied with. Aggrieved by the above order-in-Appeal, 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

the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby notifies the conditions, safeguards and procedures for removal of excisable goods (herein after referred to as the " intermediate goods") from the place of manufacture without payment of duty for the purpose of use in the manufacture or processing of all articles (hareinafter referred to as the "resultant articles") by a manufacturer who is a holder of a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ven if they are not covered under notification 44/2001, they are very much entitled to benefit of notification no. 43/2001-CE(NT) and that mere non compliance of procedural requirement cannot be a reason to deny substantive benefit. They have relied upon the decisions rendered in Murli Agro Products Ltd. vs. CCE , Nagpur 2005 (183) ELT (Tri-Dei) and CCE Jaipur vs stainless India Ltd 2008(222) ELT 210 (Tri-Dei). However, we observe that in both these cases the assessee therein had cleared goods 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

ended and 44/2001-CE(NT) dated 26-06-2001 as amended issued under sub-rule (3) read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 ibid. As Notification No. 44/2001 does not cover DFIA Scheme, the; ultimate exporter ie. M/S Ravi Foods Pvt.Ltd could have followed the procedure as prescribed under Notification No. 43/2001. However, no such procedure was followed by the ultimate exporter ". 8. This being so, the contention of the appellant that even if they are not eligible under Notification No.44/2001 they 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

 

 

 

 

 

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