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 (11) TMI CGOVT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (11) TMI 431 - CGOVT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Rebate claim rejection for non-compliance of conditions under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.).
2. Applicability of judgment in the case of M/s. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pune.
3. Verification of vessels being on a foreign run for rebate eligibility.
4. Certification requirement by the Commissioner of Customs for ship stores.
5. Compliance with basic mandatory conditions for claiming rebate.
6. Authority's power to reject rebate claims for non-compliance with notification conditions.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the rejection of rebate claims by the respondents, who exported duty paid goods as ship stores but failed to comply with condition 2(C) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The original adjudicating authority rejected the claims, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed them. The government observed that all conditions stipulated in the notification must be fulfilled for claiming the rebate, highlighting the requirement for certification from the Commissioner of Customs for the quantity of goods supplied as ship stores.

2. The revision application challenged the order-in-appeal based on the applicability of the judgment in the case of M/s. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pune. The government emphasized that the conditions of the notification were not merely procedural, and exemption could be denied for non-observance of such conditions. The Supreme Court judgment supported the rejection of rebate claims for non-compliance with notification requirements.

3. Concerns were raised regarding the verification of vessels being on a foreign run to determine rebate eligibility. The government noted that the certification from the Customs authorities confirming the vessel's foreign run status was crucial and not merely procedural. The absence of such certification raised doubts about the vessels' eligibility for the rebate claimed by the assesses.

4. The judgment highlighted the necessity of certification by the Commissioner of Customs for ship stores supplied by the assesses. The government emphasized that the powers under the notification were vested in the Commissioner of Customs and were not delegated to lower authorities. Failure to obtain approval from the Commissioner of Customs resulted in a violation of condition 2(C) and rendered the rebate claim inadmissible.

5. The government emphasized the importance of complying with basic mandatory conditions for claiming rebate under the notification. As the respondents failed to satisfy the requirements, including obtaining certification from the Commissioner of Customs, their rebate claims were rightly denied. Previous government orders also disallowed similar rebate claims by the same party, reinforcing the significance of compliance with notification conditions.

6. The authority's power to reject rebate claims for non-compliance with notification conditions was reiterated, citing the Supreme Court judgment and previous government orders disallowing similar claims. The government set aside the order-in-appeal and allowed the revision application, restoring the original order-in-original that rejected the rebate claims due to non-compliance with notification conditions.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates