Export benefits cannot be denied even when export proceeds are not realized
PrintListen to this Article
Export benefits cannot be denied even when export proceeds are not realized
We are sharing with you an important judgement of the Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Shyam Telecom Ltd. [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 117 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] on the following issue:
Issue:
Whether the benefit of export can be denied on account of non-realisation of export proceeds when goods are exported without payment of Excise duty under Bond?
Facts & Background:
Shyam Telecom Ltd. (“the Assessee” or “the Respondent”) are manufacturers of Repeaters falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 85.25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.During the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the Assessee exported the finished goods manufactured by them without payment of duty, under bond, in terms of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (“the Excise Rules”) read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated June 26, 2001 (“the Notification”).
The Department denied benefit of export to the Assessee on the ground that since the remittance for the goods exported has not been received, such clearances cannot be treated as exports. Later on, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner.
However, on appeal being filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), it was held that there is no condition regarding receipt of the export proceeds under Rule 19 of the Excise Rules or in the Notification issued in this regard.
Being aggrieved, the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi pleading that due to non-receipt of the export proceeds, the goods cannot be treated as having been exported and thus the duty foregone in respect of these exports are recoverable.
Held:
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that Rule 19 of the Excise Rules permits export of the goods under bond/ Letter of Undertaking (LUT) without payment of duty, subject to following the procedure and conditions as may be prescribed. The Notification issued under Rule 19(3) of the Excise Rules prescribes the conditions and the procedure for this purpose and in this Notification, there is no condition that in respect of the goods exported, the export proceeds must be received within any stipulated period.
Further, there is no such condition even in the Rule 19 of the Excise Rules. In view of this, the condition regarding receipt of export proceeds cannot be imposed to demand duty foregone in respect of the goods cleared for export under bond/LUT.
The Hon’ble CESTAT further held that the duty on the goods can be demanded only if the goods have not been exported out of India within the stipulated period but there is no such allegation in the instant case.
Accordingly, the matter was decided against the Revenue.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavours. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
A2Z TAXCORP LLP
Tax and Law Practitioners
Delhi:
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor,
Pocket – 1, Mayur Vihar Phase-1
Delhi – 110091 (India)
Tel: +91 11 22757595/ 42427056
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 386
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...
Comments