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 rules in favor of merchant exporter in rebate claims case under Rule 18</h1> <h3>M/s Neptunus Power Plant Services Pvt. Ltd., Mahape Versus CCE, Raigad & others</h3> M/s Neptunus Power Plant Services Pvt. Ltd., Mahape Versus CCE, Raigad & others - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 160 (G. O. I.) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. Compliance with the procedural requirements for exporting goods from a premises other than the manufacturing unit.3. Verification of goods by Central Excise Officers.4. Prior permission for removal of goods for export.5. Co-relation of exported goods with goods cleared from the factory.6. Consistency in adjudication of rebate claims.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Rebate Claims:The applicant, a merchant exporter, filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT) dated 6.09.2004. The goods exported were scraps of propeller obtained from breaking ships. The department denied the claims on the grounds that the goods were not exported directly from the factory or warehouse, and no prior permission was obtained for exporting from a premises other than the manufacturing unit.2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The department contended that the applicant did not follow the procedure prescribed in Board's Circular No. 294/10/94-CX dated 30.1.1997. This included ensuring that the goods were examined by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority before export. The applicant argued that they had complied with the circular by paying merchant overtime fees (MOT) and obtaining necessary endorsements from Central Excise officers.3. Verification of Goods by Central Excise Officers:The department argued that there was no specific endorsement of verification by Central Excise officers on the relevant ARE-1 forms. The applicant countered this by providing proof of MOT fees payment and endorsements by the range superintendent and inspector. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Belapur, confirmed that the goods were cleared under Central supervision from 3.10.12 onwards.4. Prior Permission for Removal of Goods for Export:The applicant had applied for permission to export from their premises and received approval from the department on 23.05.2011. However, the department argued that the permission granted by the Chief Commissioner on 17.09.2012 was after the subject shipment and subject to certain conditions. The applicant contended that the permission granted in 2011 was valid and should be considered.5. Co-relation of Exported Goods with Goods Cleared from the Factory:The government examined various shipping bills, ARE-1 forms, and duty-paying invoices to verify the co-relation between the exported goods and the goods cleared from the factory. The analysis showed that the description, weight, and quantities of the goods matched across documents, supporting the applicant's claim that the goods exported were the same as those cleared from the factory.6. Consistency in Adjudication of Rebate Claims:The applicant pointed out that in similar cases, rebate claims were sanctioned by the same authorities. The government observed that in an identical situation, procedural lapses could be condoned if the exported goods could be co-related with the goods cleared from the factory. The government cited various case laws supporting the view that substantive benefits should not be denied due to procedural lapses.Conclusion:The government found sufficient evidence to support the applicant's contention that the goods were examined before export and that the procedural requirements were substantially met. The rebate claims were found to be admissible under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 32/2008-CE (NT) dated 28.08.08. The impugned orders-in-appeal and orders-in-original were set aside, and the revision applications were allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found