TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, export with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking out of India to a place outside India . In the present case, the goods were taken out of India and reached buyer s place who returned them. Thus, it is clear that goods had been taken to and had reached a place outside India. Subsequent reimport of goods would not change this factual position. The findings of Commissioner (Appeals) on this count cannot be sustained. Further, the Applicants have correctly drawn attention to the provisions of Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 which provide for refund of Central Excise duty paid in accordance with the Central Excise Law if the Central Excise Duty had been paid for any goods at the time of their removal n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They exported these goods, vide ARE-I No. 07/Coral drugs/17-18, dated 22-6-2017, under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. These goods were reimported by the Applicants, vide Bill of Entry No. 3984395, dated 13-11-2017 and a credit note dated 25-11-2017 was issued to their buyer. The Applicants again exported these goods, vide Invoice Nos. 179, dated 22-1-2018 and 233, dated 28-3-2018, both under Letter of Undertaking (LUT) under Rule 96A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Applicants filed a rebate claim of ₹ 6,66,750 - on 25-4-2018 in respect of ARE-I No. 07/Coral drugs/17-18, dated 22-6-2017 under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rebate claim was rejected by the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within a period of six months from 1-7-2017 and such goods are identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer. A substantive benefit cannot be denied on the basis of technicality. 4. Personal hearing was held on 14-6-2021. in virtual mode. Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, appeared for the Applicants. He reiterated the contents of the revision application. He specifically highlighted that the export had been completed in the first instance and all conditions of Rule 18 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) are fulfilled. Upon reimport, IGST was paid but at the stage of re-export IGST refund was not obtained. Therefore, it is not a case of double benefit. He also stated that the case is squarely covered by the transitional pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Hence, the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) on this count cannot be sustained. Further, the Applicants have correctly drawn attention to the provisions of Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 which provide for refund of Central Excise duty paid in accordance with the Central Excise Law if the Central Excise Duty had been paid for any goods at the time of their removal not earlier than six months from the appointed date i.e. 1-7-2017 and if the goods are returned within a period of six months from 1-7-2017 and are identifiable to the satisfaction of proper officer. In the present case, the goods were removed for export on payment of Central Excise duty on 22-6-2017 (i.e. not earlier than six months from 1-7-2017) and were imported back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
