Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Effect of Notification No. 24/2010 dt. 26.05.2010

(Querist) 04 June 2010 This query is : Resolved 
Dear Experts,

We area a Company of manufacturing Tractors. We are exporting our tractors to various countries all over the world under cover the Excise Notification No. 42/2001 dt. 26.06.2001 as amended. We have submitted the required LUT for 12 Months for Jan-2010 to Dec-2010.

Tractors is exempted for the payment of excise duty by the Notification No. 23/2004 dt. 09.07.2004. Now, the CBE & C issued a new notification No. 24/2010 –(N.T.) dt. 26.05.2010 with the condition “
(iv) that export of excisable goods which are chargeable to nil rate of duty or are wholly exempted from payment of duty, other than goods cleared by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking, shall not be allowed under this notification;”

After issue of this notification as per my understating it is clear that there is no need for the submission of LUT or bond to export the manufactured goods while exempted for the payment of excise duty duly specified by a notification.

I want to clarify the following questions ---
1.Are we require to submit the LUT for future export?
2.Can we cancel our LUT and stop complying with the terms and conditions of the notification No. 42/2001 with immediate effect, as we have to sent the triplicate and quadruplicate copy of ARE-1 on post export basis?.
3.Can excise department put force on us to continue the exiting LUT and compliance under it ?

Regards
Sanjay Sharma
tarun goyal (Expert) 13 June 2010
dear sanjay, what i understand by the wordings of the notification is that export of excisable goods which are chargeable to nil rate of duty or are wholly exempted from payment of duty, other than goods cleared by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking, shall not be allowed under this notification;meaning thereby you will have to follow the procedure of regular export without submission of LUT/Bond and your observation at point 2 of your query appears more appropriate.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :