9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 302 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRejection of rebate claim - export of goods - conditions stipulated in Notification No. 19/2004 CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not fulfilled. - Held that - Government notes that as regard to discrepancies mentioned at Sr. No. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vii), the appellate authority has given detailed findings. Government notes that with regard to deficiency shown at Sr. No. (V) regarding valuation aspect, the applicant contended before appellate authority that the assessable value was more than FOB value due to currency fluctuation, but the applicant did not furnish any explanation as to how the variation in exchange rates has resulted in difference between assessable value and FOB value. Government observes that in their grounds of Revision Application also the applicant could not substantiate their claim of variation in exchange rate. Rather, they have take a new ground that rebate sanctioning authority cannot examine corrections of assessment and full rebate is eligible if central excise duty in paid on CIF value also. Claim of rebate was rightly rejected - Decided against the applicant.
Issues:
Rejection of rebate claim based on various deficiencies in documentation; Violation of principles of natural justice by not granting three chances of personal hearing; Discrepancies in documents such as Bill of Lading, Shipping Bill, and assessable value; Eligibility for rebate based on legal precedents; Compliance with statutory requirements for rebate claim; Admissibility of rebate claim under Notification No. 19/2004 CE(NT); Compliance with conditions stipulated in the notification; Procedural relaxation on technical grounds; Valuation aspect and explanation for differences in assessable value and FOB value; Interpretation of judgments related to conditional notifications. Analysis: The case involved a revision application filed against the rejection of a rebate claim by M/S. Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. The rejection was based on deficiencies in documentation, including discrepancies in authority details, legibility of documents, tariff classification, and assessable value exceeding FOB value. The applicant contended that the Deputy Commissioner violated natural justice by not granting sufficient personal hearing opportunities. They also argued that certain defects in documentation were curable and should be condoned. The applicant relied on legal precedents to support their eligibility for rebate based on the assessable value shown in the Central Excise invoice. The applicant claimed that the goods were exported as per the relevant documents and that all formalities were observed. The Government reviewed the case records, submissions, and previous orders. The original authority and the Commissioner of Appeals had rejected the rebate claim citing non-compliance with statutory requirements and conditions of Notification No. 19/2004 CE(NT). The appellate authority provided detailed findings on deficiencies in documentation and held the rebate inadmissible. The Government upheld the appellate authority's decision, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with conditions attached to notifications. The Government referred to legal precedents to support its decision that benefits under conditional notifications cannot be extended without fulfillment of conditions. Regarding the valuation aspect, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the difference between assessable value and FOB value. The Government found no grounds to interfere with the appellate authority's findings on this matter. Ultimately, the Government upheld the Order-in-Appeal as just and legal, rejecting the revision application for lack of merits. The decision highlighted the significance of compliance with statutory requirements and conditions for claiming rebates under relevant notifications.
|
