Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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

        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

        Government affirms Commissioner's decision on export compliance, prioritizing substance over procedure

        Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vapi Versus M/s Aarti Industries Ltd., Silvassa

        Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Vapi Versus M/s Aarti Industries Ltd., Silvassa - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms.
        2. Validity of the Letter of Undertaking (LUT) at the time of export.
        3. Procedural compliance versus substantive compliance in export rebate claims.

        Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms:
        The primary issue was the rejection of the rebate claim due to the respondent's failure to submit the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms, which are mandatory documents as per para 8.3 and 8.4 of Chapter 8 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions and Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.09.04. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the rebate claim based on this non-compliance. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, relying on collateral evidence such as the Mate Receipt, Shipping Bill, and Bill of Lading to establish that the goods were indeed exported. The Government of India, applying the ratio of the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of M/s U.M. Cables Ltd., upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the rebate claim should not be rejected solely on the ground of non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms if collateral evidence proves the export.

        2. Validity of the Letter of Undertaking (LUT) at the time of export:
        The department contended that the goods were not cleared under a valid LUT. However, this issue was not raised in the original revision application. The Government noted that since this issue was not part of the original revision application, it cannot be entertained at this stage. This highlights the procedural requirement that all grounds of contention must be included in the initial application.

        3. Procedural compliance versus substantive compliance in export rebate claims:
        The Government emphasized that export-oriented schemes like rebates and drawbacks should not be denied based on mere technicalities if the substantive fact of export is not in doubt. Citing various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Suksha International vs. UOI, the Government stressed that a liberal interpretation should be given in cases of technical lapses, provided the core requirement of actual export is met. The Government reiterated that procedural infractions should be condoned if the substantive conditions, such as the actual export of goods, have been fulfilled. This principle was supported by numerous tribunal and Government of India decisions, which consistently held that substantive benefits cannot be denied for procedural lapses.

        Conclusion:
        The Government upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the revision application filed by the department. The decision reinforced the principle that procedural lapses should not overshadow the substantive compliance of export requirements, ensuring that the benefits of export-oriented schemes are not unduly restricted by technicalities.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found