Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1327 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (11) TMI 1327 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Rebate claim - whether sanctioning of rebate claims of the appellants on the inputs cleared as such to SEZ unit is legally correct or not? - Held that: - On perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that he has discussed Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which deals with rebate of duty by which the rebate claim was filed and Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004, by which the appellant had reversed the credit. The case requires clarification 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

vam, AC (AR), For the Respondent Order Both the appeals are arising out of a common impugned order-in-appeal and therefore they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Mainetti (I) Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein are the manufacturers of Plastic Hangers and exported them on payment of duty of ₹ 2,05,504/- in their Cenvat Credit and filed a rebate claim for the same. After due process of law, vide OIO No. 169/2010 dated 23.11.2010, the adjudicating 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

2004, relating to removal of inputs as such which states that Cenvat Credit may be utilised for payment of an amount equal to credit taken on inputs and that the payment of an amount equal to credit taken cannot be treated on par with payment of duty which is necessary for claiming rebate in terms of provisions of Rule 18 of CER, 2002 read with Section 11 B of CEA, 1944, (iii) that as per Rule 18 of CER 2002, and Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004, the amount paid and claimed as re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cturer of GPPS raw materials for plastic hangers and in para 3 mentioned that the claimpertains to the export of GPPS raw materials for plastic hangers and in OIO No. 169/2010 dated 23.11.10, stated in para 1 that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Hangers and in para 3 stated that the claim pertains to the export of plastic hangers. Further, he observed that both the OIOs are silent on the fact that only inputs had been cleared/stock transferred to their own SEZ unit at Ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h payment of duty which is necessary for claiming rebate in terms of the provision of Rule 18 of CER, 2002. Hence, he concluded that the rebate claims sanctioned by the adjudicating authority is not correct by setting aside the OIOs and allowed the Departmental appeals. 3. The Ld. Counsel, Shri P.C. Anand, appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the order passed by the adjudicating authority is in order since he has verified all the original ARE1s with the duplicates received from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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