TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Manufacturing Company Wins Appeal Over Cenvat Credit Denial & Drawback Conversion</h1> The appellant, involved in manufacturing exempt Agricultural Tractors, faced issues with Cenvat credit denial and drawback conversion due to a clerical ... Drawback - amendment in Shipping bill - Held that: - the appellants’ case is squarely covered by provision to Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 in as much as all the documents which were necessary for filing shipping bill under claim of drawback existed at the time of export and the ARE-I accompanying the shipping bill clearly stated that the goods were being exported under claim of drawback - the amendment cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Denial of Cenvat credit on duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products.2. Claiming drawback of excise duty paid on inputs for exported tractors.3. Rejection of request for drawback conversion due to clerical error in shipping bill.4. Interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act for amending shipping bills.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Agricultural Tractors exempt from duty, availed Cenvat credit on inputs. After an amendment denying such credit, they exported tractors under DEPB/DFRC scheme. They then claimed drawback of excise duty paid on inputs used for export, but a clerical error in shipping bills led to rejection by authorities.2. The appellant argued that the failure to mention 'cum-drawback' in shipping bills was a clerical error, not a conversion of export scheme. They cited Section 149 of the Customs Act, allowing document amendments if necessary evidence existed during export. Previous Tribunal decisions supported this argument, emphasizing the importance of existing export-related documents.3. The Tribunal found the appellant's case aligned with Section 149, as all required documents for claiming drawback were present during export, including ARE-I indicating export under drawback. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal concluded that denial of amendment based on a clerical error would be unjust. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside.This judgment highlights the significance of complying with export-related documentation requirements and the applicability of legal provisions like Section 149 of the Customs Act in allowing necessary amendments to shipping bills for drawback claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
