9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 230 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate of duty of input stage on export of goods - Rule 18 - excisable goods were cleared for export by them in respect of ARE-2, without obtaining prior permission of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to the effect in terms of Notification No. 21/2004CE(NT) dated 06.092004 - Held that - The applicant cannot claim the input rebate as a matter of right when he has failed to follow the provisions of Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) without giving explanation for any valid reasons for not filing the declaration. In this case applicant has not admitted the occurrence of any unintentional procedural lapse and rather termed the demand of such declaration as illegal and bad in law. The condition is of such a nature that the declaration has to be filed and verification of the input output ratio is to be carried out prior to export of goods because once the goods are exported no such verification could be possible to ascertain the correctness. Government, therefore, holds that non fulfilling the statutory conditions laid down under the impugned Notification and not following the basic procedure of export as discussed above, cannot be treated as just a minor or technical procedural lapse for the purpose of availing the benefit of rebate on the impugned goods. As such there is no force in the plea of the applicant that this lapse should be considered as a procedural lapse of technical nature which is condonable in terms of case laws cited by applicant. - Rebate claim denied - Decided against the assessee.
Issues:
1. Rejection of rebate claim under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. 2. Compliance with conditions for availing rebate on excisable goods used in the manufacture of export goods. 3. Filing of declaration and verification of input-output ratio. 4. Procedural lapses and rectifiability. 5. Legal precedents and case laws cited by the applicant. 6. Government's analysis and decision on the revision application. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involves the rejection of a rebate claim by M/S Themis Medicare Limited under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The claim was rejected due to the goods being cleared for export without obtaining prior permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as required by the notification. The applicant was alleged to have contravened the provisions of the notification and the CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions. 2. The central issue revolves around the compliance with conditions for availing rebate on excisable goods used in the manufacture of export goods. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) rejected the applicant's appeal, stating that they failed to comply with the conditions laid down in Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The applicant contended that their appeal was not considered on merits and highlighted discrepancies in the rebate claim amount. 3. The requirement of filing a declaration and verifying the input-output ratio is crucial for availing the rebate. The applicant failed to file the necessary declaration as per the notification, and the verification of the input-output ratio was not conducted before the export of goods. The government emphasized that these statutory conditions are mandatory and cannot be considered as minor procedural lapses. 4. The applicant argued that the procedural lapses were rectifiable and relied on various case laws to support their contention. However, the government held that non-fulfillment of statutory conditions and procedural lapses cannot be condoned, especially when claiming rebate benefits under the notification. 5. The applicant cited legal precedents such as Allanasons Ltd, Krishna Filaments Ltd, and Moderns Process Printers to support their case. However, the government highlighted the importance of strict compliance with the conditions specified in Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004, as established in the case of MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY. 6. After a detailed analysis of the case records and relevant provisions, the government upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the revision application, deeming it devoid of merit. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to statutory conditions and procedures when claiming rebate benefits under the applicable notification.
|
