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

        <h1>Government Upholds Commissioner's Order on Duty Rebate, Cites Notification No. 4/06-CE</h1> <h3>M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad Versus CCE, Mumbai-I</h3> M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad Versus CCE, Mumbai-I - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for rebate claims under different Central Excise Notifications.2. Applicability of effective duty rates for exported goods.3. Authority of the department to direct recredit of Central Excise Duty.4. Interpretation of CBEC instructions and relevant case laws.5. Mode of refund for excess duty paid.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Rebate Claims Under Different Central Excise Notifications:The applicants, a manufacturer-exporter, filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. They paid duty on exported goods at 10% under Notification No. 2/08-CE dated 01.03.2008 but cleared goods for home consumption at 4% and 5% under Notification No. 4/2006-CE as amended. The original authority sanctioned rebate claims to the extent of duty payable at 4%/5%, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Applicability of Effective Duty Rates for Exported Goods:The applicants argued that both Notification No. 4/2006-CE and Notification No. 2/2008-CE have parliamentary approval, allowing them to choose the more beneficial notification. They contended that they should be eligible for a rebate of duty paid at 10% as per Notification No. 2/08-CE. However, the government noted that Notification No. 2/08-CE was issued to reduce the general rate of Central Excise duty, while Notification No. 4/06-CE provided an effective rate of duty for specific goods. The CBEC instructions stipulate that export goods should be assessed in the same manner as goods cleared for home consumption, implying that the effective rate of duty should apply.3. Authority of the Department to Direct Recredit of Central Excise Duty:The applicants challenged the original authority's direction to recredit the excess duty paid into their CENVAT Credit Account instead of issuing a cheque. They cited Chapter 9 of the Supplementary Instructions by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which states that refunds or rebates should be given by cheque. The government, however, upheld the original authority's decision, referencing the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana's ruling in M/s. Mahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. UOI, which supported refund by way of credit for excess duty paid.4. Interpretation of CBEC Instructions and Relevant Case Laws:The applicants relied on several case laws to argue their right to choose the beneficial notification. The government noted that the cited cases pertained to situations where two notifications co-existed, allowing the assessee to choose the more beneficial one. However, in this case, the issue was about the rebate of duty paid at the general tariff rate versus the effective rate. The government emphasized that the CBEC instructions mandate assessing export goods at the effective rate applicable for home consumption.5. Mode of Refund for Excess Duty Paid:The government observed that any excess duty paid should be returned in the manner it was paid, as per the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana's ruling. The original authority's decision to recredit the excess duty into the applicant's CENVAT Credit Account was found to be appropriate and in line with legal precedents.Conclusion:The government rejected the revision applications, upholding the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The rebate was deemed admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of 4% or 5% as per Notification No. 4/06-CE dated 01.03.2006, as amended. The excess duty paid was to be recredited into the applicant's CENVAT Credit Account, consistent with the CBEC instructions and relevant legal rulings.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found