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 Upholds Appellate Decision on Rebate Claims, Resolving Discrepancies</h1> <h3>CCE, Kolkata-III Versus M/s Electro Steel Casting Ltd., Kolkata</h3> CCE, Kolkata-III Versus M/s Electro Steel Casting Ltd., Kolkata - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 150 (G. O. I.) Issues Involved:1. Discrepancies in rebate claims regarding invoice and FOB values.2. Non-submission of Bank Realization Certificates.3. Ambiguities in quantities, net, and gross weight of exported goods.4. Simultaneous claim of drawback and rebate.5. Non-submission of legible copies of accompanying documents.Detailed Analysis:1. Discrepancies in Rebate Claims Regarding Invoice and FOB Values:The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the declared FOB values and invoice values in the rebate claims. For the first claim of Rs. 65,66,993/-, the declared FOB value did not match the value derived from the invoice after deducting freight and commission. Similarly, for the second claim of Rs. 38,48,035/-, the declared FOB value was inconsistent with the derived value. The department argued that the FOB value should be calculated by deducting freight, insurance, and commission from the invoice value. The respondent contended that their invoice value was on a CFR basis, inclusive of freight, and that commission should be included in the FOB value as per DGFT Policy Circular No. 51(RE-2008)/2004-09 and Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority agreed with the respondent, stating that commission should be included in the transaction value, and the Government upheld this view, finding no infirmity in the appellate authority's decision.2. Non-submission of Bank Realization Certificates:The adjudicating authority noted that the respondent did not submit Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) with their rebate claims. The appellate authority found that the respondent had submitted BRCs from the DGFT website, which were verified by the departmental officer. The Government found no infirmity in the appellate authority's decision and deemed the department's contention untenable.3. Ambiguities in Quantities, Net, and Gross Weight of Exported Goods:The adjudicating authority pointed out ambiguities in the declared net and gross weights of the exported goods, stating that if the goods (pipes) were cleared in loose condition, the question of gross weight did not arise. The respondent explained that the net weight referred to the metal weight of the pipes, while the gross weight included the cement mortar lining weight. The Government found the respondent's explanation reasonable and concluded that the export of duty-paid goods was established, making the rebate admissible.4. Simultaneous Claim of Drawback and Rebate:The adjudicating authority expressed ambiguity regarding the simultaneous claim of drawback and rebate. The respondent argued that the AIR of duty drawback neutralized only the customs duty incidence on inputs, which was permissible irrespective of the CENVAT facility. The appellate authority accepted this contention, supported by CBEC Circular No. 35128. The Government found no irregularity in the simultaneous availment of excise rebate and customs duty drawback.5. Non-submission of Legible Copies of Accompanying Documents:The department alleged that the respondent submitted illegible copies of invoices, with serial numbers inscribed by hand, intending to mislead the department. The appellate authority found that original invoices were available for verification and that the serial numbers were inscribed by hand only in one instance, which was countersigned by excise and customs officials. The Government observed that procedural lapses should be condoned if the substantive fact of export was not in doubt, aligning with the broader concept of justice as established by various court decisions.Conclusion:The Government upheld the appellate authority's decision, finding no infirmity in the order-in-appeal. The revision application was rejected, and the rebate claims were deemed admissible based on the established export of duty-paid goods and the inclusion of commission in the FOB value. The Government emphasized a liberal interpretation of procedural requirements in favor of substantive compliance with export-oriented schemes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found