9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 177 - HC - Central ExciseRebate / refund - export - correlation of the consignment of sugar exported with the goods which were cleared from the factory on payment of duty - held that - The Revisional Authority has noted that the railway receipt and transport documents submitted by the assessee in support of its contention show that the consignment of sugar was transported directly from the factory to the port premises. Moreover, the Range Superintendent had confirmed the payment of duty of the goods by the relevant Central Excise invoice. The Revisional Authority has also decided that though the sugar had been cleared for sale in the open market at the relevant time, the clarification issued by DGFT on 16 March 2006 did not contain any restriction on export since sugar was freely exportable. - rebate allowed - decided against the revenue.
Issues:
Claim of rebate rejection by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise; Reversal of order by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal); Confirmation of order by Govt. of India; Interpretation of Notification 19/2004 and subsequent Circular; Export of goods directly from manufacturer's premises; Confirmation of export by Commissioner (Appeals) and Revisional Authority; Examination of railway receipt and transport documents; Clarification on export restrictions by DGFT; Merit of the petition. The High Court of BOMBAY considered a case where the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Mumbai-1 rejected a rebate claim by the respondent due to the inability to identify and correlate the exported consignment of sugar with goods cleared from the factory on duty payment. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) later reversed this decision, allowing the claim, which was further upheld by the Govt. of India exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the reversal on Notification 19/2004 and a subsequent Circular clarifying the condition of direct export, emphasizing the need for clear identification or correlation of exported goods with those cleared from the factory. The Commissioner found that the goods cleared from the factory were indeed exported directly, supported by evidence of transportation from the manufacturer's premises to the port under Customs Authorities' supervision and payment of duty confirmed by a certificate from the Central Excise Range Superintendent. The Revisional Authority affirmed the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), noting that the consignment of sugar was transported directly from the factory to the port as evidenced by railway receipts and transport documents. Additionally, the Range Superintendent's confirmation of duty payment through Central Excise invoices further supported the export claim. Despite the sugar being cleared for open market sale, the DGFT's clarification did not impose export restrictions on sugar, reinforcing the legitimacy of the export. The High Court found no merit in the petition due to the consistent factual findings of both lower authorities, emphasizing the absence of perversity or error in the decision-making process. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Revisional Authority based on the substantial evidence presented regarding the direct export of goods from the manufacturer's premises, compliance with duty payment requirements, and absence of export restrictions on the product in question.
|
