TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether rebate of duty on export goods could be denied merely because export proceeds were not shown as realised in convertible foreign exchange, and (ii) whether the matter required remand because the factual compliance with Paragraph 2.40 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 had not been properly examined.
Issue (i): Whether rebate of duty on export goods could be denied merely because export proceeds were not shown as realised in convertible foreign exchange.
Analysis: The revision was examined in the light of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the notification issued thereunder, and Paragraph 2.40 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14. The relevant policy permitted export proceeds to be realised in rupees through a freely convertible Vostro account of a non-resident bank in the specified manner, and such receipt could be treated as export realisation under export promotion schemes. The denial of rebate solely on the broad premise of absence of foreign exchange receipt was therefore not sustainable without examining whether the prescribed rupee-realisation mechanism had in fact been followed.
Conclusion: The rebate could not be rejected merely on the ground of non-realisation in foreign exchange if the export proceeds were realised in the manner permitted by the Foreign Trade Policy.
Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand because the factual compliance with Paragraph 2.40 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 had not been properly examined.
Analysis: The record showed that the applicant asserted receipt through a Vostro account and relied on bank documents, but there was no clear finding by the appellate authority on whether those documents established compliance with Paragraph 2.40. In the absence of such findings, a fresh examination of the documentary evidence was necessary before deciding entitlement to rebate.
Conclusion: The matter was fit to be remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration on the available documents and for a reasoned finding on compliance.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was returned for fresh adjudication, leaving the substantive rebate claim to be re-decided after proper factual verification.
Ratio Decidendi: Where export proceeds are stated to have been realised through the rupee-Vostro mechanism permitted by the Foreign Trade Policy, rebate cannot be denied without a specific factual finding on compliance with that mechanism.
TaxTMI 
