9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agent and the ARE1 is endorsed by the proper officer of customs to that effect. When the export is not disputed by the revenue, the rebate claim cannot be rejected on the ground of procedural infractions - rebate allowed. Eligibility of sugar cess as rebate - Held that:- The petitioners have filed an array of transactional documents to co-relate the export endorsed in the ARE1 by the proper officer of customs with the duty paid invoices issued at the factory during June 2006. The department also have the means to collect the trail of goods cleared from the factory to the Chennai Port Trust Warehouse and sale to M.s MMTC Ltd and thereafter to the Port for shipment and movement onboard vessel - matter remitted back to the original authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y gate or warehouse. 4.It is averred that the goods were cleared from the factory to the Chennai Port Trust Warehouse between 17.06.2006 and 19.06.2006 vide duty paid invoices. ARE1 Nos.31/2006-07 dated 05.09.2066 and ARE1 Nos.05/2006-07 dated 05.09.2006 were issued by the respective petitioners for export of the above quantities of white sugar to Bangladesh. Commercial invoices were issued on 05.09.2006 covering the sale of the subject goods to M/s MMTC Limited. Sugar was a canalized item and M/s.MMTC are the canalizing agent. As such, M/s.MMTC are the merchant exporter and the petitioners are supporting manufacturers who can claim rebate on establishing the proof of export in terms of Notification No 19 /04 CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elation of the duty paid goods to the ones exported by the canalizing agent and rejected the claim. 7.The petitioners would submit that the discrepancies is condonable. That they are eligible for rebate as the proof of export of that quantity matching with the duty paid documents/invoices is sufficient proof for claim of rebate. They also argue that the cess are also duties and rebate for cess have to be sanctioned under the law and relied on decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in TVS Motor Co.Ltd vs UOI 2015 (323) ELT 57 (KAR.) 8.It is true that the discrepancies in the documents submitted by the petitioners is too alarming to be condoned by an adjudicating authority. Interestingly, revenue has rejected the rebate cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
