TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 Overturns Rejection of Rebate Claims, Emphasizes Procedural Fairness</h1> <h3>IN RE : WIPRO LTD.</h3> IN RE : WIPRO LTD. - 2014 (307) E.L.T. 206 (G. O. I.) Issues:Rejection of rebate claims under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 due to non-submission of duplicate copy of ARE-1 from SEZ authorized officer.Analysis:The case involved M/s. Wipro Ltd. filing 7 rebate claims totaling &8377; 5,34,173 for goods cleared to SEZ on payment of Central Excise Duty. The department issued a show cause notice questioning the rebate claims due to the non-submission of duplicate copies of ARE-1 as required under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The Deputy Commissioner rejected all rebate claims citing non-receipt of said duplicates. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the revision application by the applicant before the Central Government.The revision application raised several grounds, including the department's acceptance in a previous order that submitting duplicate ARE-1 copies was not the assessee's responsibility, the acknowledgment of goods' export by the department, and the alleged non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority in rejecting the claims. The applicant argued that procedural deficiencies should not override substantive rights, citing precedents where substantial benefits were not denied due to technical lapses.The Central Government, after reviewing the case records, noted that while the duplicate ARE-1 copy was not submitted, the original copies with customs certification confirming export were provided. The Government emphasized that denying rebate claims solely on procedural lapses was unjust, suggesting that the original authority could have verified the export genuineness with SEZ Customs. Consequently, the Government set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that minor procedural infractions should not bar substantial benefits.In conclusion, the Central Government disposed of the revision application by remanding the case for reevaluation, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
