Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Government favors applicants in export duty rebate case, prioritizing substantive compliance over procedural errors.</h1> <h3>IN RE: VINERGY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.</h3> IN RE: VINERGY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 407 (G. O. I.) Issues Involved:1. Rejection of rebate claims due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.2. Whether goods were cleared directly from a registered factory or warehouse.3. Applicability of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 294/10/97-CX., dated 30-1-1997.4. Verification of duty paid nature and correlation of exported goods.5. Procedural lapses and their impact on rebate claims.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Rebate Claims Due to Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The applicants, M/s. Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd., filed 55 rebate claims for the supply of furnace oil to foreign-going vessels. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner rejected these claims for not following the procedure laid down in C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 294/10/97-CX., dated 30-1-1997. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current revision applications.2. Whether Goods Were Cleared Directly from a Registered Factory or Warehouse:The applicants argued that 5 out of 55 consignments were supplied directly from BPCL's Mahul Refinery, and the remaining 50 consignments were supplied from BPCL's Sewree Terminal, which is registered as a First Stage Dealer under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicants contended that the Sewree Terminal qualifies as a warehouse under Rule 2(h) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and thus, the condition of direct export from a factory or warehouse is fulfilled.3. Applicability of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 294/10/97-CX., Dated 30-1-1997:The applicants argued that the circular in question is not applicable as it pertains to Notifications Nos. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.) & 44/94-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, whereas their exports were made under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and rebate is claimed under Notification No. 19/04-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-9-2004. The department, however, maintained that the circular is still relevant for correlating the goods cleared from the factory with those exported.4. Verification of Duty Paid Nature and Correlation of Exported Goods:The applicants provided detailed documentation to establish a correlation between the goods cleared from the factory and those exported. This included Central Excise Invoices, ARE-1 forms, Shipping Bills, Bunker Delivery Notes, and endorsements by Customs Officers. The applicants argued that the goods were examined by Customs at the port, and the entire operation was supervised by jurisdictional Customs Officers, thereby fulfilling the requirement for correlation.5. Procedural Lapses and Their Impact on Rebate Claims:The applicants contended that procedural lapses, such as not getting the triplicate copy of ARE-1 endorsed by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent, should not lead to the denial of rebate claims if the substantive conditions of export and duty payment are met. They cited several judgments supporting the view that procedural infractions should be condoned if exports have taken place.Judgment Summary:The Government observed that the applicants had indeed supplied furnace oil from both BPCL's Mahul Refinery and Sewree Terminal, the latter being registered as a warehouse under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The objections raised by the department were found to be procedural rather than substantive. The Government noted that the documentation provided by the applicants sufficiently established the correlation between the goods cleared and those exported.The Government held that the procedural lapses cited by the department should not outweigh the substantive evidence of export and duty payment. The judgment emphasized that export-oriented schemes should not be unduly restricted by technicalities, and a liberal interpretation should be adopted to promote exports.The Government directed the original authority to sanction the rebate claims after verifying the duty deposit particulars as stated in the ARE-1 forms, thereby setting aside the impugned orders-in-appeal. The case was remanded back to the original authority with instructions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicants.Conclusion:The revision applications were disposed of with the direction to the original authority to verify and sanction the rebate claims, emphasizing the need to focus on substantive compliance over procedural lapses.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found