9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 656 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRabte / refund claim - Export of goods after 6 months from the date of clearance of goods from factory - violation to permission of Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. - Held that - The applicant has contended that the case laws relied upon by them vide their submission dated 15.04.2011 before the original authority has neither been analysed nor distinguished in the order. A perusal of the impugned Orders-in Original shows that in para 11, the adjudicating authority has given a specific finding that the contention of the claimant as above is not acceptable in the present case since all the three case laws pertain to exports made under Bond or under other schemes and have little bearing on the facts of the assessee . Government finds nothing to the contrary has been placed on record to interfere with this observation of the original authority. Claim rejected - Decided against the applicant.
Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims for goods exported after six months from clearance for export, Compliance with conditions of Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT), Applicability of case laws cited by the applicant, Condonation of procedural lapses, Interpretation of statutory and mandatory conditions, Benefit under conditional notification, Compliance with conditions for claiming rebate, Applicability of case law judgments, Analysis of impugned Orders-in-Original, Justification of rejection of rebate claims, Compliance with statutory provisions, Observations of the Commissioner (Appeals), Merit of Revision Applications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Rebate Claims: The Revision Applications were filed against the Orders-in-Appeal rejecting rebate claims for goods exported after six months from the clearance for export, citing violation of conditions under Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on non-compliance with the prescribed time limit for exportation. 2. Compliance with Notification Conditions: The Notification stipulated that excisable goods must be exported within six months from the date of clearance for export from the factory, with provision for extension by the Commissioner of Central Excise in deserving cases. The failure to seek an extension in this case led to non-compliance with a statutory and mandatory condition, which cannot be considered merely procedural. 3. Applicability of Case Laws: The applicant relied on various case laws to support their position, emphasizing substantial compliance with export requirements and the intention of export promotion schemes. However, the Government found that the cited cases did not directly apply to the specific facts of the present issue, as highlighted in the Orders-in-Original. 4. Condonation of Procedural Lapses: While the applicant sought condonation for procedural lapses, the Government emphasized the importance of strict compliance with conditions attached to notifications when claiming rebates. The judgment in the case of MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. was cited to underscore that concessional relief dependent on conditions must be strictly adhered to. 5. Interpretation of Statutory Conditions: The Government reiterated that benefits under conditional notifications cannot be extended in cases of non-fulfillment of conditions, as established by legal precedents such as Government of India vs. Indian Tobacco Association. The Notification should be considered an integral part of the statute and must be read in conjunction with the Act. 6. Observations of the Commissioner (Appeals): The Commissioner (Appeals) had given specific findings regarding the applicability of cited case laws to the present issue, noting that they pertained to different export schemes. The Government found no grounds to dispute this observation and upheld the decision as just and legal. 7. Merit of Revision Applications: After thorough consideration of all submissions, case records, and legal principles, the Government concluded that the Revision Applications lacked merit and were therefore rejected. This detailed analysis covers the core issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the reasons for the rejection of the rebate claims and the Government's decision to uphold the Orders-in-Appeal.
|
