9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 167 - CGOVT - CustomsAdmissibility of rebate claim in the light of the amendments in the Notification No. 43/2002-Customs dt. 19-4-2002 vide Corrigendum dt. 29-11-2002 - rebate claim of duty paid on finished goods which were exported under DEEC scheme - As per the amendment in Notification No. 43/2002-Customs, the exporter cannot claim rebate u/r 18 on the duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of resultant products - But, in the instant case, the applicant is claiming rebate on the duty paid on the finished goods which is not contrary with amendment - Hence, the applicant is entitled for the rebate
Issues:
1. Rejection of rebate claims under DEEC Scheme and Cenvat Credit Rules. 2. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) upholding rejection of rebate claims. 3. Revision Applications challenging the rejection of rebate claims. 4. High Court setting aside the Revision Applications and remanding for fresh consideration. 5. Fresh consideration by the Joint Secretary in accordance with law and corrigendum. 6. Government's review of written and oral submissions along with High Court judgment. 7. Decision on whether the applicant can claim rebate of duty paid on finished goods post-amendments. Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of rebate claims under DEEC Scheme and Cenvat Credit Rules The applicant, M/s. Shubhada Polymers Products P. Ltd., filed rebate claims under the DEEC Scheme and Cenvat Credit Rules. The rejection was based on the observation that the export of finished goods fulfilled obligations under the quantity-based advance license, and the applicant had availed benefits under the DEEC Scheme, making them ineligible for the rebate of duty paid on the exported goods. Issue 2: Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) Aggrieved by the rejection, the applicant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the rejection of the rebate claims, leading to further dissatisfaction by the applicant. Issue 3: Revision Applications challenging the rejection of rebate claims The applicant then filed Revision Applications, arguing that the rejection of rebate claims did not consider the corrections made in Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. and that they were eligible for refund of Cenvat Credit under Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. The Revision Applications were heard, and the impugned Orders-in-Appeal were upheld. Issue 4: High Court setting aside the Revision Applications and remanding for fresh consideration The High Court of Bombay set aside the Revision Applications and remanded the matter back to the Joint Secretary for fresh consideration in accordance with law in light of the corrigendum dated 29-11-2002, emphasizing the non-consideration of the corrigendum in the initial decision-making process. Issue 5: Fresh consideration by the Joint Secretary in accordance with law and corrigendum Following the High Court's directive, the Joint Secretary reviewed the case, considering the corrigendum and amendments in Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. It was acknowledged that the applicant was entitled to the rebate of duty paid on the finished goods post-amendments, leading to the setting aside of the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and Orders-in-Original. Issue 6: Government's review of written and oral submissions along with High Court judgment The Government carefully reviewed the written and oral submissions, along with the High Court's judgment, and concluded that the applicant was eligible for the rebate of duty paid on the finished goods in accordance with the amendments in the Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. Issue 7: Decision on whether the applicant can claim rebate of duty paid on finished goods post-amendments Based on the amendments in the Notification No. 43/2002-Cus, the Government determined that the applicant could claim the rebate of duty paid on the finished goods. Consequently, the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and Orders-in-Original were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the original authority for sanctioning the rebate to the applicant as per law, if otherwise in order. The Revision Applications were allowed, and the matter was resolved in favor of the applicant.
|
