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>Government denies rebate claim due to goods exported under drawback claim, not eligible for rebate under Rule 18.</h1> The government upheld the rejection of the rebate claim by the applicant, citing that the goods were exported under a claim of drawback, making them ... Revision application – rebate claim – Held that:- applicant has re-exported the goods under claim of drawback and not under rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the applicant has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Notification 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-01, and no foreign exchange was received, as this is a case of re-export of the goods under claim of drawback. As rebate is an export-oriented scheme to boost the export to earn foreign exchange, Govt. observes, the rebate of CVD is not admissible to the applicant, Revision application is rejected Issues:1. Rebate claim rejection on grounds of availing benefits of drawback.2. Dispute over refund of CVD/Excise duty paid on re-export.3. Allegation of arbitrary decision by the appellate authority.4. Claim for refund limited to Basic Customs Duty, not CVD/Excise Duty.5. Admissibility of rebate of CVD in case of re-export under drawback claim.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the rejection of the rebate claim by the applicant on the grounds of availing benefits of drawback. The applicant had re-exported 'Isoprenyl Aluminum' after importing it and paying countervailing duty (CVD). The appellate authority rejected the rebate claim, stating that the goods were exported under a claim of drawback, making them ineligible for rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002.2. The applicant contended that they had not claimed drawback but had paid duty on the export of goods and claimed rebate. They argued that the Customs had refunded only 98% of the Basic Customs Duty through a DEPB License and advised them to approach the Excise authority for the refund of the CVD/Excise duty paid on the consignment. The applicant maintained that they did not claim the drawback for the CVD/Excise duty paid on re-export.3. The applicant further alleged that the appellate authority's decision was arbitrary and lacked factual basis. They provided evidence that their claim for refund with the Customs was only for the Basic Customs Duty, not the CVD/Excise Duty. The appellate authority's inference that the applicants had availed duty drawback of the CVD/Excise Duty paid was deemed as perverse and unsustainable in facts and law.4. The Commissioner upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the applicant re-exported the goods under a claim of drawback, not under a rebate of duty as per Rule 18. The government observed that as the rebate scheme aims to boost exports and earn foreign exchange, the rebate of CVD was not admissible to the applicant in this case of re-export under a drawback claim.5. Ultimately, the government upheld the impugned order-in-appeal, rejecting the revision application as devoid of merit. The case highlighted the intricate interplay between rebate claims, drawback benefits, and the admissibility of CVD rebate in the context of re-export under a drawback claim, leading to the dismissal of the applicant's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
