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>Court orders rebate of excise duty on exported cotton yarn, emphasizes honoring export incentives</h1> <h3>SUPER SPINNING MILLS LTD. Versus JOINT SECRETARY REVISION APPLICATION, NEW DELHI</h3> SUPER SPINNING MILLS LTD. Versus JOINT SECRETARY REVISION APPLICATION, NEW DELHI - 2020 (373) E.L.T. 594 (Mad.) Issues:1. Denial of rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and Notification No. 30/2004-C.E.3. Discrepancy in availing Cenvat credit and claiming rebate.4. Legitimacy of export incentives and denial of the same.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of 100% Organic Cotton Yarn, exported goods and filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The claim was denied by the Deputy Commissioner, leading to subsequent rejection by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) resulted in a direction to reconsider the rebate claim under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. based on a decision in Valli Textiles Case. However, the respondent informed that the Valli Textiles Case was dismissed, and the petitioner's revision petition was remitted to await the order of the CESTAT in the same case.3. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. The petitioner claimed to have paid excise duty at a concessional rate under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., while the respondents argued that the goods were exempted under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., making the rebate claim invalid.4. The court analyzed the provisions of both notifications, emphasizing that the petitioner's choice to pay excise duty under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. made them eligible for the rebate claim. The denial of the rebate was deemed unsustainable, as the petitioner had availed Cenvat credit and fulfilled the conditions of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E.5. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent to pay the rebate of excise duty on the exported organic cotton yarn to the petitioner within 45 days, along with interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment highlighted the importance of honoring legitimate export incentives and rectifying the wrongful denial of such benefits.
TaxTMI 