9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exports already made prior to 17th September 2007 could not be denied rebate. Even on this basis the rejection of the Petitioner's refund application does not appear to be justified. Rebate allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P.(C) 7033/2002 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Sunil, Mr. N. Jagdish and Mr. Ashly Cherian, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Pratap Singh, Advocate. O R D E R Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. The challenge in this petition by Indosin Ltd. is to the Order-in-Appeal dated 29th November 2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (Respondent No. 4) dismissin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d FTR Luxury Kings 10's cigarettes of 84 mm length to United Arab Emirates ('UAE'). The said goods were exported by a shipping bill dated 11th December 2000. The Petitioner also invoked Notification No. 41/94-CE (NT) dated 12th September 1994. 4. The case of the Department is that the rebate scheme envisaged that proper duty on goods exported is 'paid'. It was stated that the refund claim filed by the Petitioner for ₹ 15,12,000 was liable to be rejected as the goods exported were fully exempted from payment of duty. In the circumstances, a SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 13th June 2001 asking it to show cause why the refund claim should not be rejected. 5. By an order dated 13th August 2001, the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 5A of the Central Excise Act. (1) The notifications of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Nos. G.S.R.508(E), dated the 8th July, 1999 and G.S.R.509(E), dated the 8th July, 1999, issued under sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), by the Central Government shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended in the manner as specified against each of them in column (3) of the Ninth Schedule, on and fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad not been amended retrospectively by that sub-section. 9. The 9th Schedule to the Finance Act, 2003 sets out in column 2 the Notification No. 32/99 and the corresponding amended provision in column 3 which stated that the following proviso shall be inserted at the end namely: Provided that exemption contained in this notification shall not be applicable to- (a) cigarettes falling under Chapter 24 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986); and... 10. The net result of the above change is that the area based refund is no longer available to manufacturers of cigarettes in the North East and this includes NETCL as well. Under Section 154(4) of the Finance Act 2003, the Government is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was denied by amending Notification No. 19/2004- CE, for the first time, vide Notification No. 37/2007-CE (NT) dated 17th September 2007. This amendment was prospective. However there was no corresponding amendment in Notification No. 41/1994-CE (NT) dated 12th September 1994 in terms of which the rebate was being claimed by the Petitioner. The Gujarat High Court has in the above decision held that the above amendment to Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) to be only prospective. As a result the exports already made prior to 17th September 2007 could not be denied rebate. Even on this basis the rejection of the Petitioner's refund application does not appear to be justified. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
