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>Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Rebate Claims for Stainless Steel Utensils Export</h1> <h3>M/s. Arun International Versus CCE, Delhi-I</h3> M/s. Arun International Versus CCE, Delhi-I - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 465 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Claim for rebate of central excise duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for exported stainless steel utensils.Analysis:During the period of dispute, the appellant manufactured stainless steel utensils which were fully exempt from duty. The appellant exported these utensils under a claim for rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rebate claims were rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner citing non-compliance with prescribed conditions and procedures. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal.The appellant argued that they followed all procedures except for declaring the input-output ratio, which should not result in rejection. They cited judgments supporting substantive benefits over procedural infractions. The Departmental Representative defended the rejection, emphasizing the importance of complying with the prescribed conditions for rebate eligibility.The Tribunal analyzed the relevant notifications and conditions for claiming rebate under Rule 18. It highlighted the necessity of filing declarations, verifying input-output ratios, procuring inputs directly from registered sources, and clearing export consignments under specified procedures. The appellant failed to meet these requirements, leading to non-observance of substantive conditions meant to prevent misuse of the rebate facility.The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument to adopt standard input-output ratios from the Exim Policy, emphasizing the importance of complying with the specific conditions outlined in the notifications. Non-compliance with these conditions, especially regarding declaration and verification of input-output ratios, led to the denial of the rebate. Citing relevant Apex Court judgments, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the rebate claims, dismissing the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order due to the appellant's failure to adhere to the prescribed conditions and procedures for claiming the rebate. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the rebate claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
