M\/s. EID Parry India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1651 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 6-8-2018
E\/ROM\/40246, 40243 and 40245\/2018, E\/396 & 815\/2010 and E\/40324\/2013 – Misc. Order Nos. 40621-40623\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nShri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Ms. Sulekha Beevi,
\nThe above applications for rectification of mistake has been filed by the appellant seeking to rectify the alleged mistake in Final Order No. 42934 and 42935\/2017 dated 14.11.2017.
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e and scrap. The order has presumed that the petitioners have contested that the said products are waste or scrap which is an error apparent on the face of record. Admittedly, these are only by-products. The finding of the Tribunal that categorization of neem oil and neem cake is not directly relevant to the dispute is not correct because under ITC Policy para 6.8(g), if the products are by-products then there is no requirement of exporting the same product or similar product as a pre-condition to claim DTA sale facility. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n lf gives details of contentions put forward by the appellant countering the order which was contested by them in the appeal. These are arguments which have to be considered at the time of hearing an appeal and not while hearing an ROM application. It is his case that there are no such errors apparent on the face of record of the final order which requires Rectification. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. EID Parry India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ChennaiCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1651 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 6-8-2018E\/ROM\/40246, 40243 and 40245\/2018, E\/396 & 815\/2010 and E\/40324\/2013 – Misc. Order Nos. 40621-40623\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate … Continue reading “M\/s. EID Parry India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2.2 He submitted that the impugned final order has overlooked Appendix 14-I-H of Handbook of Procedure in LOP and the relevant para in ITC policy. Thereby the finding that for DTA sale the same condition as that for finis<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. From the submissions made by the ld. counsel as well as after perusing the ROM application, we find that the ld. counsel has put forward detail contentions stating to be errors in the impugned final order. These submissions touch the merits of the case. An application for rectification is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an appeal can be re<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n