Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 1081

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the appellant has not produced documents such as original invoices, Self certification on input service, FIRC/BRC copies - time limitation. HELD THAT:- The appellant has claimed rebate in respect of services such as transportation charges, stuffing of cargo, CHA, THC etc. - It is found there is no allegation either in the Notice or in the impugned order that these services were not used in connection with export of goods. It is observed that the only condition prescribed in N/N. 41/2012 for allowing the rebate is that the specified services should be utilized in the export of goods. The proceedings pending before appellate authority for violation of condition of Notifications 51/2003 and 21/2003 cannot be a reason for rejecting the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uded that the claim was hit by the bar of limitation - the rebate claim was originally filed on 28.06.2013, which was within the period of one year from the date of export. The date of re-submission is not the date of filing of the rebate claim - the claim has been filed within the time period of 1 year from the date of export and it is not hit by limitation of time. Appeal disposed off. - MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Manasa Srinivasan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant has filed the present appeals against Order-InAppeal Nos. 113 117/2016 (CXA-II) dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II). The details of the pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he ground that they have violated the condition of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003, in as much as the Granite Blocks manufactured by the appellant were directly exported from the Quarry without getting processed from the premises of the EOU. 2.2. The Notices also proposed rejection of the rebate claims on the ground that the appellant has not produced documents such as original invoices, Self certification on input service, FIRC/BRC copies. In respect of the claim filed for the period July 2012 to September 2012, the claim was also proposed to be rejected on the ground of time bar, as the claim was filed beyond 1 year from the date of export. 3. The Notices were adjudicated by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the conditions of the Notification No. 41/ 2012. 5.1. Regarding the issue of time bar raised in one of the rebate claims for the period of July 2012 to September 2012, she submits that they have originally filed the claim on 28.06.2013, but it was returned and re-presented on 13.09.2013. As they have submitted the original claim within the period of 1 year from the date of export, there is no time bar in filing the said rebate claim. Accordingly, she prayed for allowing all the rebate claims filed by them. 6. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 8. I find that the appellant has filed five rebate claims under notification No.41/2012 dated 20.09.2012. From the details .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l invoices, Self certification on input services, FRIC/BRC copies etc., the appellant submits that they have furnished all original documents before the appropriate authority along with the rebate claims. However, these documents were not examined by the proper officer and the rebate claims were rejected on the ground that they have not fulfilled the condition of Notification 51/2003 and 21/2003. It is the submission of the appellant that they will be able to explain before the proper officer that all the documents required for the purpose of processing the rebate claims were furnished .I observe that the appellant has to explain before the authorities that they have furnished all documents required for processing the rebate claims. For thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates