Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a refund claim for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods could be denied merely because it was filed under the wrong rule, and whether the matter required reconsideration under Rule 57F(13).
Analysis: The refund claim was examined below only with reference to Rule 173L and Rule 173H, though the real basis of the claim was Rule 57F(13). Under that provision, a manufacturer who uses duty-paid inputs in exported goods may adjust the credit against duty on clearances for home consumption and, if such adjustment is not possible, claim refund of the balance. The mere misdescription of the provision in the application was held not sufficient to defeat an otherwise available substantive entitlement. The objection that a fresh claim would now be time-barred was also not accepted, since the application had been filed within time and the question was whether the statutory conditions of Rule 57F(13) were satisfied.
Conclusion: The wrong quotation of the rule did not by itself disentitle the assessee from refund, and the rejection could not stand on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on compliance with Rule 57F(13).