TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants refund for duty overpayment on exported consignment</h1> <h3>BALMER LAWRI VAN LEER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR</h3> BALMER LAWRI VAN LEER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 206 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Claim for refund of duty liability erroneously included in fortnightly payment calculation for exported consignment.Analysis:The appellants filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim amounting to Rs. 91,666, which was based on an arithmetical error in including duty liability for an exported consignment in their fortnightly duty payment calculation. The authorities rejected the claim, citing that no duty was paid for the exported consignment under bond. The appellants provided a detailed worksheet and ledger accounts during the hearing to support their claim. The order-in-original acknowledged the export under bond but deemed the refund claim ineligible due to the absence of duty payment on the exported consignment.During the proceedings, it was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) went beyond the adjudicating authority's order by stating that no documentary evidence confirming the export was presented. This was deemed incorrect and impermissible since the adjudicating authority had already confirmed the export under bond. The rejection of the claim was also based on the inclusion of duty liability for the exported goods in the total excise duty calculation, along with goods for home consumption. The authorities disregarded a certificate from a Chartered Accountant provided by the appellants without explanation.Another ground for rejection was that the refund should have been claimed as a duty rebate, which was deemed improper as the goods were removed under bond without duty payment. The appellants were following the fortnightly duty payment procedure and mistakenly included the duty liability for the exported goods in their calculations. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities' orders and granting consequential relief in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
