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 Clarifies Duty Rebate Admissibility under Notification No. 4/06-CE. Excess Payment Re-credited.</h1> <h3>M/s Cipla Ltd. Mumbai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Raigarh/Mumbai-III</h3> M/s Cipla Ltd. Mumbai Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Raigarh/Mumbai-III - 2015 (328) E.L.T. 742 (G. O. I.) Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Notification No. 2/08-CE vs. Notification No. 4/06-CE for duty rate on exported goods.2. Entitlement to rebate claims of duty paid on exported goods.3. Whether the rebate sanctioning authority can question the assessment of duty.4. Issue of unjust enrichment in re-crediting the excess duty paid.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Notification No. 2/08-CE vs. Notification No. 4/06-CE:M/s Cipla Ltd. contended that both notifications are valid and do not exclude each other, thus allowing them to choose the more beneficial one. They argued that they are entitled to rebate claims based on the 10% duty rate under Notification No. 2/08-CE. The government noted that Notification No. 2/08-CE aimed to reduce the general rate of duty, while Notification No. 4/06-CE provided for an effective rate of duty. The government concluded that the effective rate of duty should be applied to exported goods, as per CBEC instructions, and not the general tariff rate.2. Entitlement to Rebate Claims:M/s Cipla Ltd. argued that they are entitled to a rebate of the entire duty paid on exported goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The government observed that the rebate should be granted only for the duty paid at the effective rate (4% or 5%) as per Notification No. 4/06-CE, not the higher general tariff rate. The government's decision was supported by CBEC instructions and previous judgments, which emphasized that rebate claims should be based on the effective rate of duty.3. Rebate Sanctioning Authority's Jurisdiction:M/s Cipla Ltd. claimed that the rebate sanctioning authority cannot question the assessment of duty on exported goods. The government noted that the rebate sanctioning authority must ensure that the rebate claim is in order and can sanction the claim in whole or part, as per Notification No. 19/04-CE(NT). The authority is not mandated to sanction claims for excess paid duty and then initiate recovery proceedings.4. Unjust Enrichment:The department argued that allowing re-credit of excess duty paid to the manufacturer would result in unjust enrichment, as the manufacturer has already recovered the excess duty from M/s Cipla Ltd. The government agreed that re-credit should be allowed only if the provisions of Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are complied with, ensuring no unjust enrichment occurs. The factual position regarding duty incidence and payment was to be verified by the original authority.Conclusion:The government concluded that the rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate (4% or 5%) under Notification No. 4/06-CE. The excess paid amount should be re-credited in the Cenvat credit account, subject to compliance with Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The revision applications were disposed of accordingly.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found