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>High Court sets aside Central Government's order, remands for fresh consideration. Petitioner awarded costs.</h1> The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the revisional order of the Central Government and remanding the matter for a fresh consideration. ... Denial of rebate claim - whether rebate of Excise duty paid on inputs is inadmissible when the benefit of drawback has been claimed on the exported goods - Held that:- The Government has not at all found anything in the finding recorded by Commissioner incorrect. The order of Tribunal in Meghdoot Pistons v. C.C.E., Kanpur - [2010 (5) TMI 486 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], relied on by Assessee in the memo of appeal has also not been referred at all. Though two judgments of Apex Court are referred, but they are on the principle of interpretation and as such do not answer the question raised in this matter. The order of the Government, therefore, is bad for want of reasons and discussions on the question raised, as also for want of any finding of reversal before setting aside order of Commissioner. The reasons assigned by Commissioner in allowing Appeal have not been noticed and nothing has been found as to why they are bad or incorrect, yet Commissioner’s order has been set aside by simply referring to relevant provisions and reiterating what is stated therein. The revisional order, therefore, in my view, cannot sustain. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Claim for duty drawback on custom, interpretation of relevant provisions, consideration of input stage rebate, revisional order by Central Government, adherence to statutory wordings, consideration of previous judgments, setting aside of Commissioner's order, need for reasoned order.Analysis:1. Claim for duty drawback on custom:The petitioner exported certain commodities, including Diesel Engines, and submitted rebate claims for duty drawback on custom. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise raised concerns regarding the admissibility of input stage rebate when finished goods are exported under a duty drawback claim. The petitioner clarified that they claimed duty drawback only on Customs duty, not on Excise duty. The Commissioner allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant had filed documents indicating the intention to avail input stage rebate.2. Interpretation of relevant provisions:The Commissioner's decision was challenged through a Revision before the Central Government, which set aside the Commissioner's order. The Central Government cited para 1.5(i) of the Excise Manual, stating that input stage rebate is inadmissible when finished goods are exported under a duty drawback claim. The Central Government relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing strict adherence to statutory wordings and concluded that the input stage rebate was not admissible in this case of exports under the Duty Drawback scheme.3. Consideration of input stage rebate:The petitioner argued that the Central Government's revisional order lacked detailed reasoning and did not address the findings of the Commissioner adequately. The Central Government's order did not find any fault with the Commissioner's findings but merely reiterated statutory provisions. The petitioner contended that the order lacked a proper discussion on the raised issues and failed to provide a valid reason for setting aside the Commissioner's order.4. Revisional order by Central Government:The High Court found that the Central Government's revisional order was deficient in providing a reasoned analysis and failed to consider the provisions in the Central Excise Manual and the Duty Drawback Scheme adequately. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough re-examination by the Central Government, considering all relevant aspects, and issuing a reasoned order in accordance with the law.5. Adherence to statutory wordings and previous judgments:The Court highlighted the importance of strictly adhering to statutory wordings, as emphasized in previous Supreme Court judgments. It noted that the Central Government's order lacked a comprehensive analysis and failed to address the specific issues raised in the matter, leading to the setting aside of the Commissioner's order without proper justification.6. Setting aside of Commissioner's order and need for reasoned order:Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the revisional order of the Central Government and remanding the matter for a fresh consideration. The Court directed the Central Government to re-examine the revision, provide a reasoned order, and ensure a thorough evaluation of the provisions in the Central Excise Manual and the Duty Drawback Scheme. The petitioner was also awarded costs amounting to Rs. 10,000.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
