Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs. JBM Auto Components Ltd.
Appeal Number : [(2014) 51 taxmann.com 36 (New Delhi - CESTAT)]
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :

Deemed exports and exports are not distinguishable for the purpose of Central Excise Law

In the instant case, the Department preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi, against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that deemed exports and exports are not different.

The Department sought to distinguish exports and deemed exports before Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that there is no law to advance such proposition and accordingly,the two concepts i.e. exports and deemed exports are not different. Thus, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed.

Our Comments:

In the case of E.I. Dupont India (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2014) 41 taxmann.com 479/43 GST 461 (Guj.)] the Hon’ble Gujarat high Court held that refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) would be allowed in respect of credit attributable to turnover of deemed export.

Similarly, In the case of Inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. CCE [(2007) taxmann.com 949 (Ahd. – CESTAT)] the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad held that rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 would be applicable to deemed exports.

(Bimal Jain, FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons), Mobile: +91 9810604563, Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com)

Read Other Articles from CA Bimal Jain

More Under Excise Duty

Posted Under

Category : Excise Duty (4051)
Type : Articles (14841)
Tags : CA Bimal Jain (661) Cestat judgments (797)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *