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>Successful Revision Application Grants Ex-Post Facto Permission for Rebate Claim on Toothpaste Tubes</h1> <h3>In RE: DENTRIFICES</h3> In RE: DENTRIFICES - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 431 (G. O. I.) Issues: Grant of rebate claim on collapsible tubes used for packing toothpaste exported to U.S.S.R.Analysis:The case involves a revision application filed by M/s. Dentrifices against an order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin regarding the grant of rebate claim on collapsible tubes used for packing toothpaste exported to U.S.S.R. The applicants had initially applied for registration under Rule 191A of the Central Excise Rules on 12-2-1990 but did not receive a response for a long time. Due to a time-bound export program, they proceeded with exports based on informal communication that their case was not covered under Rule 191A. Subsequently, they invoked Rule 12A and received a rejection of their initial application under Rule 191A on 29-10-1990. However, on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the rejection and granted ex post facto permission to work under Rule 191A on 24-7-1992, after the exports had been completed.During the hearing, it was revealed that the Department had not replied to the applicant's letter dated 1-6-1990. The Asstt. Collector had rejected their claims under Rule 12A without addressing the admissibility of the rebate claim under Section 191A. Following the grant of ex post facto approval to work under Rule 191A, the applicants requested to treat their application dated 1-6-1990 as made under Rule 191A, which was found to be well-founded. The Government's finding also applied to the application dated 7-8-1990. Consequently, the applicants, who had acted bona fide throughout the process, were deemed entitled to favorable orders, considering the confusion within the department and the clear intention expressed in their applications to follow Rule 191A procedures.As a result, the revision application succeeded, and the date of applications under Rule 191A was deemed to be 1-6-1990 and 7/14-8-1990, with the case to be processed accordingly. The judgment acknowledged the genuine efforts of the applicants, the departmental confusion, and the subsequent approval granted, leading to a favorable outcome for the exporters.
TaxTMI 