9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1531 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - rate of export duty reduced by N/N. 129/2008- Cus dt. 07.12.2008 - Whether the appellant is eligible for the reduced rate of export duty on iron ore exported by them? Held that - There is no dispute that let export order of the iron ore was issued on 02.12.2008 and that is relevant date under 51. In order to be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 129/2008- Cus dated 10.12.2008 the let export order should have been posted 10.12.2008 - benefit of notification not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is eligible for the reduced rate of export duty on iron ore exported by them. Analysis: The appeal in question was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 03/2010 (G) Cus dated 24.05.2010. The central issue at hand was to determine the eligibility of the appellant for the reduced rate of export duty on iron ore they exported. The appellant filed shipping bills on 02.12.2008 for the export of iron ore fines with a Fe content of 63%. The export duty was discharged on the same date, and the Let Export order was issued on 02.12.2008. However, during the period between filing the shipping bills and the actual export, the export duty on iron ore was reduced by Notification No. 129/2008-Cus dated 07.12.2008. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid. Both lower authorities rejected the claim, leading to the appeal. Upon reviewing the submissions from both parties, it was established that the relevant date for determining eligibility under Notification No. 129/2008-Cus was the date of the Let Export order, which in this case was issued on 02.12.2008. To qualify for the exemption under the notification, the Let Export order should have been post 10.12.2008. Therefore, the benefit of the notification did not apply in this scenario. The appellate tribunal found that the lower authorities were correct in their conclusion, and the impugned orders were deemed legal and correct. Consequently, the appeal was considered devoid of merits and was rejected.
|
