Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (7) TMI 900

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onal officers of the factory or the warehouse - In the present case, the appellants filed the refund claims to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacturer. The said refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground that a part of the refund related to the warehouse of the exporter. However, the appellant is not entitled to the refund where the amounts of refund do not co-relate with the documents - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/76863/2016 & ST/76757/2016 - FO/A/76317-318/2017 - Dated:- 25-5-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri. Harakamal Chakraborty, Sr. General Manager, for the Appellant Shri. S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (AR) for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods shall file the claim of refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory or the warehouse. On plain reading of the Notification, it is clear that the manufacturer-exporter may file the refund claim to their jurisdictional officers of the factory or the warehouse. In other words, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the factory of the manufacturer or the warehouse shall decide the refund claim. In the present case, the appellants filed the refund claims to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacturer. The said refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground that a part o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and specified consequence should not follow. (Sharif Ud-Din V. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC (303) 203 (156) ELT 168) Bombay. 7. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, distinction between mandatory and directory provisions of law and catena of orders of Hon ble Tribunal Govt. of India that substantive benefit is to be given by condoning non-mandatory procedural provisions Govt. sets aside both the order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original and remands the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority to verify with reference to the observations made above, compliance with mandatory conditions like export of subject goods, their duty-paid character, and process the applicants rebate claim on merit without raising tec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates