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

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2013 (8) TMI CGOVT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (8) TMI 575 - CGOVT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Rebate claims rejection based on procedural grounds and discrepancy in chapter headings.
2. Eligibility of refund under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
4. Delay in filing revision applications and condonation.
5. Applicability of judgments on voluntary deposit and refund.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The applicants filed rebate claims for duty paid on exported goods but faced rejection due to procedural non-compliance and a discrepancy in chapter headings between Shipping Bills and Central Excise Invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) condoned the lapses and verified actual exports from ARE-1s and Shipping Bills, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2:
The applicants claimed refund under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for duty reversed on exempted products. The lower authorities rejected the claim, stating the payment under Rule 6(3)(b) is not excise duty eligible for rebate. The applicants argued that the reversal was akin to duty payment, making them eligible for rebate.

Issue 3:
The interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was crucial. The rule mandates a payment equal to 10% of the value of exempted goods if separate accounts are not maintained. Government noted that since the goods were exempted, no duty was payable, and the payment could not be considered as duty, just a voluntary deposit.

Issue 4:
The Government acknowledged the delay in filing the revision applications but condoned it due to sufficient cause shown by the applicants. The applications were taken up for decision based on merit, and the issues were addressed collectively.

Issue 5:
Applying the judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Government deemed the payment under Rule 6(3)(b) as a voluntary deposit, directing the amount to be re-credited to the applicants' Cenvat credit account. The impugned Orders-in-Appeal were modified accordingly, resolving the matter in favor of the applicants.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the procedural, eligibility, and interpretational aspects of the rebate claims and voluntary deposit, ensuring a fair resolution for the applicants based on legal principles and precedents.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates