9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 39 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Export of goods to Nepal - Availability of alternate benefits - Held that - As per the facts available on record there are two procedures for export of goods to Nepal. One is prescribed under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) on payment of duty and the second is prescribed under Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) under Bond without payment of duty. Both the notifications are conditional notifications subject to fulfilling certain procedures and conditions Appellant opted to pay duty under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT). - There is no provision for normal rebate of duty paid on excisable goods under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, when goods are exported to Nepal in view of Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) and accordingly there is no scope for a third alternative with the appellant seeking refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1994 by fitting the shipping bills filed and assessments completed. Appellant has also not challenged the assessment made in the shipping bills. It is also not the case of the appellant that it was prevented from opting benefit under Nofification No. 45/2001-CE(NT). - order passed by the first appellate authority is legally correct and there is no reason to interfere with order - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund under OIA No. KRS/199/Vapi/2008 - Interpretation of Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) and Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) - Application of alternative benefit under different notifications - Legal precedent from CCE Ludhiana Vs. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills case - Scope of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund under OIA No. KRS/199/Vapi/2008 by the Commissioner (Appeal) Vapi. The appellant cleared goods for export to Nepal under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) and later sought to avail benefits under Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) without payment of duty. The appellant relied on legal precedents like CCE Ludhiana Vs. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills and Share Medical Care Vs. UOI to support their argument. 2. The Tribunal examined the case records and noted that there are two procedures for exporting goods to Nepal, one under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT) involving duty payment and the other under Notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) without duty payment. The appellant chose to pay duty under the former but later sought benefits under the latter notification. The Tribunal referenced the Apex Court's decision in Share Medical Care Vs. UOI and opined that alternative benefits can be availed if conditions of the alternative notification are met. 3. The Tribunal highlighted the Apex Court's opinion that if an appellant is entitled to benefit under an alternative provision, it cannot be denied. It was clarified that the appellant could have opted for either of the two procedures at the time of export and that there is no provision for normal rebate of duty paid under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for goods exported to Nepal under Notification No. 20/2004-CE(NT). The Tribunal concluded that the first appellate authority's decision was legally correct, and there was no basis to interfere with it. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, affirming the order passed by the first appellate authority. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific procedures outlined in the relevant notifications and the limitations on seeking refunds under different provisions of the Central Excise Act.
|
