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 upholds duty rebate denial due to non-compliance & improper use of inputs</h1> The Central Government upheld the Order-in-Appeal favoring the department in a case involving a dispute over the claim of rebate on duty paid for exported ... Procedural lapses for claiming rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,2002 for export of goods - non-observance of conditions No. (1) and (2) of the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 i.e. condition regarding filing of declaration and conditions regarding verification of input-output norms was not followed - applicant is regularly procuring Hexane without payment of duty and obtains Annexure 45 from the department. - Held that:- claimant cannot claim the input rebate as a matter of right when he has failed to follow the provisions of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) without explaining any valid reasons for some unintentional procedural lapses. Agaisnt the Assessee. Issues:Claim of rebate on duty paid for exported goods.Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.).Compliance with conditions for claiming rebate.Verification of input-output norms for rebate claim.Procurement of duty-free inputs for manufacturing exported goods.Admissibility of input rebate under Central Excise Rules.Analysis:The case involves a dispute regarding the claim of rebate on duty paid for exported goods by the applicant, a manufacturer of vegetable oil and by-products. The original authority sanctioned a rebate claim, but the department filed an appeal citing non-compliance with conditions for claiming the rebate. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the department, leading to a revision application by the applicant before the Central Government.The applicant contended that they had complied with all rules and notifications, emphasizing that the demand for a declaration of input-output norms for granting the rebate was illegal. They argued that the rules and notifications must be interpreted as they are without any additions or substitutions. The applicant also highlighted their regular procurement of duty-free Hexane and obtaining Annexure 45 from the department as evidence of declaring input-output ratio.The Central Government reviewed the case records and observed that the applicant failed to file the required declaration for verification and approval of input-output ratio before exporting the goods, as mandated by Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The Government rejected the applicant's argument that the demand for such a declaration was illegal, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedures. The Government noted that the applicant used both duty paid and duty-free inputs in manufacturing the exported goods without proper verification, making the input rebate inadmissible under Central Excise Rules.Ultimately, the Central Government found no merit in the revision application, upholding the Order-in-Appeal that favored the department. The application was rejected, and the original decision was affirmed based on the non-compliance with the conditions for claiming the rebate and the inadmissibility of the input rebate due to the use of duty-free inputs in manufacturing the exported goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
