Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 1999 (12) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (12) TMI 85 - CGOVT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Rebate claims rejection by Asstt. Commissioner for failure to produce duplicate copies of duty paying documents and discrepancies in goods description. 2. Commissioner (Appeals) accepting plea except for non-submission of original duty paying documents. 3. Interpretation of duty paying document requirements under Rule 12(1)(b) of the CER, 1944. 4. Circulars prescribing quadruplicate copy of invoice for rebate claims. 5. Submission requirements for rebate claims and jurisdiction of rebate sanctioning authority. Analysis: Issue 1: The Asstt. Commissioner rejected rebate claims due to missing duplicate duty paying documents and discrepancies in goods description. This led to the filing of Revision Applications by the concerned companies against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. Issue 2: The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted most pleas but rejected the appeal concerning non-submission of original duty paying documents, citing reliance on Board's circular No. 129/40/95-C.Ex, dated 29-5-1995. Issue 3: The central question revolved around the duty paying document requirement for fabric duty paid in the manufacturing of exported articles. The judgment clarified that quadruplicate copies of invoices, as per Rule 52A, are crucial for rebate claims under Rule 12(1)(b) of the CER, 1944. Issue 4: Circulars issued by the Board prescribed quadruplicate copies of invoices as necessary documents for scrutiny by the rebate sanctioning authority. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with these circulars for processing rebate claims effectively. Issue 5: The judgment highlighted that the rebate sanctioning authority has the discretion to request either quadruplicate invoices from fabric manufacturers or original invoices from job workers involved in manufacturing. It underscored the authority's role in processing claims and ensuring compliance with submission requirements. In conclusion, the judgment allowed the Revision Applications based on the clarification of duty paying document requirements and compliance with circulars. It emphasized the significance of submitting the necessary documents for rebate claims and outlined the authority's role in processing such claims effectively.
|