Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2020 (2) TMI 626

..... ation - Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Goods imported under Advance Authorisation Schemes are exempted are from payment of customs duty, additional customs duty, education cess, anti-dumping duty and safeguard duty et cetera. An importer has to 1st discharge export obligation undertaken under the Advance Authorisation by exporting finished goods out of the country. Had the petitioner used only duty paid goods in the manufacture of export goods the petitioner would have been entailed rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the present case, however the petitioner has utilized not only goods/inputs imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme but also goods/inputs procured on payment of excise duty/additional duty of customs equivalent to central excise duty on which it availed CENVAT Credit to manufacture goods exported - There is no discussion in the impugned orders of the 1st, 2ndrespondent and the 3rd respondent as to under which customs notification the goods were imported by the petitioner under the Advance Authorisation Scheme. The petitioner has used goods/inputs procured on payment of Central Excise duty and Additional Duty .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... 6.2001. The said notification sets out the procedure to be followed by an exporter of the goods, for filing rebate claims under Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules for verification of the claims by the Department and ultimate sanction of the rebate claims. 5. The petitioner effected direct exports from its factory through Internal Container Depot (ICD) in Coimbatore under the supervision of the officers of the Excise Department. The export consignments were physically verified with the description and the quantity listed in Form ARE 1 with the Respective Export Invoices. After due verification, the consignments were exported. 6. The petitioner filed 6 rebate claims between January 2008 and March 2008 for the goods exported by it between November 2007 and January 2008 for a total sum of ₹ 22,45,748/-. 7. The 1st respondent partially sanctioned the rebate claims for a sum of ₹ 14,48,817/- by way of re-credit into the CENVAT Account of the petitioner s. The 1st respondent rejected the rebate claims to an extent of ₹ 8,00,931/-on the ground that the description of the export goods in the export invoices were invariance within the description in Form ARE-1's and hence t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... nt if their Dindigul unit was just to encash the cenvat credit lying unutilized in their sister unit. As the credit earned was not as per legal provisions, so the duty paid from this earned cenvat credit could not be rebated in cash. Government finds no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in allowing recredit of the amount paid as duty on the exported goods and accordingly uphold them. 8. Regarding the second issue where the description of the goods exported does not tally with those cleared from the factory of manufacture, Government observes that for claiming rebate of duty, the exporter has to corelate the goods those document like Shipping Bill/Bill of lading/Commercial invoice etc, to establish that the some goods have been exported by way of matching of description of goods etc. 9. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to do so. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already passed a very detailed and judicious order and Government finds no reason whatsoever to interfere in these orders and hence uphold them. 10. Revision application is rejecting being devoid of merit. '' 10. Challenging the impugned Order, the petitioner submits that the impugned order i .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... the ARE-1 and the commercial invoice and therefore on this count also the rebate claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed. 15. This case was heard and reserved for passing orders on 13.12.2019. The petitioner was called upon to file a sample copy of the purchase order placed by foreign buyer so as to find out the description of the goods which were to be exported by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of a purchase order dated 23.10.2007 wherein the description of the goods to be supplied by the petitioner is "SG/Ductile Iron Machine Casting Pipe Fitting Assembly". In some of the export invoice, shipping bill and the commercial invoice, the petitioner has however described the export product as"SG/Ductile Iron Machine Casting for Pipe Fitting" which according to the petitioner was typographical mistake . 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 17. From a perusal of the records, it is noticed that the petitioner had imported goods under Advance Authorisation Scheme under the relevant Foreign Trade Policy. 18. Goods imported under Advance Authorisation Schemes .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||