TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 remands refund & rebate claims for reassessment under Cenvat Credit & Central Excise Rules</h1> The court set aside the orders rejecting refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and remanded the matter for reconsideration of ... Refund and rebate of tax suffered on inputs used for export of goods - petitioner’s application for refund was rejected solely on the ground that the Central Government did not have any jurisdiction to consider an issue regarding rejection of a refund under Rule 5 of the CC Rules - Rule 18 of the CE Rules - HELD THAT:- In a latter decision delivered by the Gujarat High Court in RAJ PETRO SPECIALITIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2013 (6) TMI 814 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court had referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in UM Cables Limited v. Union of India [2013 (5) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and set aside the order of the Revisional Authority rejecting the rebate claims filed by the petitioners for non-submission of the original and duplicate ARE-1 and held that the petitioner would be entitled to rebate of duty on excisable goods, which were in fact imported on payment of excise duty from their respective factories. It is the petitioner’s case that all relevant material to establish that the excise paid inputs were used for export of goods and the material for corelating the same are available on record, however, the same has not been examined. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed solely relying upon the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 1739 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] without considering other aspects - it is considered apposite to set aside the impugned orders - matter remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider afresh - petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. Entitlement to rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.3. Procedural compliance for claiming rebate under Notification no.21/2004-CE(NT).4. Jurisdictional authority's consideration of rebate claims.Summary:1. Rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:The petitioner filed revision applications against orders rejecting refund claims for taxes on inputs used for export of goods. The initial refund claims were rejected by the concerned authority on the grounds that the goods were manufactured in Uttarakhand, where certain exemptions applied, thus making refund claims under Rule 5 of the CC Rules inapplicable. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeals without considering the applicability of Rule 18 of the CE Rules.2. Entitlement to rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:The petitioner argued that it was entitled to claim a rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules instead of a refund under Rule 5 of the CC Rules. Both the Appellate Authority and the Central Government failed to consider this claim. The court deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and restore the petitioner's appeal for reconsideration of the rebate claim under Rule 18.3. Procedural compliance for claiming rebate under Notification no.21/2004-CE(NT):The second batch of rebate applications was rejected due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, such as not filing ARE-2 forms and discrepancies in shipping bill addresses. The Appellate Authority relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in M/s CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized the mandatory nature of submitting ARE-2 forms. However, the court noted that other High Courts, including Bombay and Gujarat, had ruled that procedural lapses should not invalidate rebate claims if substantive compliance is demonstrated.4. Jurisdictional authority's consideration of rebate claims:The court found that the Appellate Authority and the Central Government had not adequately considered the petitioner's claims for rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules. The court highlighted the need to distinguish between substantive conditions and procedural requirements, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. The court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to reassess the rebate claims in light of these observations and relevant material on record.Conclusion:The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the petitioner's rebate claims under Rule 18 of the CE Rules, ensuring that all relevant material and procedural compliance are duly examined. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
