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 grants merchant exporter rebate claim, criticizes delay in decision, emphasizing notification's benefit.</h1> <h3>Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited Versus Union Of India, Principal Commissioner Ra And Ex-Officio Additional Secretary, Maharasthra., The Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise And Customs (Appeals) Chhattisgarh., The Assistant Commissioner Customs And Central Excise, Chhattisgarh.</h3> Bagadiya Brothers Private Limited Versus Union Of India, Principal Commissioner Ra And Ex-Officio Additional Secretary, Maharasthra., The Commissioner ... Issues Involved:1. Denial of rebate claim on goods exported outside India.2. Application for extension of time for export beyond six months.3. Rejection of application for extension by the authorities.4. Judicial precedents and liberal interpretation of beneficial notifications.Summary:Denial of Rebate Claim on Goods Exported Outside India:The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.02.2022, where the Principal Commissioner rejected their revision petition. The original adjudicating authority had denied the rebate claim due to non-compliance with the condition of exporting goods within six months from clearance.Application for Extension of Time for Export Beyond Six Months:The petitioner, a registered merchant exporter, applied for an extension on 18.12.2012, citing genuine reasons for the delay in exporting goods. The application was supported by relevant documents.Rejection of Application for Extension by the Authorities:The adjudicating authority denied the rebate claim, and the appellate authority affirmed this decision, stating that the petitioner did not export within the stipulated six months and did not obtain necessary permission for an extended period. The application for extension was rejected after more than 2½ years on 10.04.2015. Subsequent appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Revisional Authority were also rejected.Judicial Precedents and Liberal Interpretation of Beneficial Notifications:The petitioner argued that the stringent view taken by the authorities defeated the purpose of the Export Promotion Scheme, which aims to boost exports and earn foreign exchange. The petitioner cited the Calcutta High Court judgment in 'Kosmo Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr. Of C. EX. Kolkata-1' and other judicial precedents emphasizing a liberal interpretation of beneficial notifications. The respondents countered that the extension beyond six months is discretionary and not a right, and the petitioner's reasons for delay were not satisfactory.Court's Decision:The court noted that the respondents took over 2½ years to decide the extension application, which should have been finalized within seven days as per the notification. Given the beneficial nature of the notification, the court set aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 and the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority. The petitioner was entitled to the rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the notification dated 06.09.2004. All writ petitions were allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
