2007 (2) TMI 89 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation(Central Excise) Revenue contended that appellant were assessed the goods for duty in the same manner cleared for home consumption for export to Bhutan Complete waiver of pre-deposit of disputed amount allowed to appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim based on duty payment under Section 4A for exports to Bhutan.
2. Discrepancy in duty payment leading to appeal and subsequent orders by the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (A).
3. Interpretation of applicable duty payment sections for goods exported to Bhutan.
4. Compliance with guidelines and instructions under the Central Excise Act.
5. Applicability of Packaged Commodities Rules of Bhutan.
6. Natural justice principles in decision-making process.
7. Jurisdiction of Indian authorities over foreign laws.
8. Board's circular on duty payment and marking of retail sale price for exported goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim of Rs. 66,449 based on duty payment under Section 4A for exports to Bhutan. The Adjudicating Authority initially sanctioned the refund claim, but the Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (A) citing non-compliance with guidelines under the Central Excise Act.

2. The Commissioner (A) allowed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the goods, instant noodles, were not exempted under the Bhutan Package Commodities Rules and Regulations, mandating duty payment under Section 4. The appellants argued that duty under Section 4A is not required for exports, emphasizing the misinterpretation of procedures for exports to Bhutan.

3. The appellants contended that the appellate authority erred in applying Bhutanese law without notice or reference, violating principles of natural justice. They highlighted the Ministry of Consumer Affairs' Notification omitting the requirement of complying with certain rules for exports, emphasizing the Board's clarification on duty payment and marking of retail sale price for exported goods.

4. The JDR argued that duty under Section 4A was correctly paid, negating the refund claim under Section 4. However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants, recognizing the prima facie merit in their contention that Section 4A applies only to goods cleared for home consumption in India.

5. The Tribunal granted a stay on the disputed amount of Rs. 66,449, acknowledging the prima facie case in favor of the appellants and the discrepancy in interpreting duty payment sections for exported goods. The decision was based on the understanding that Section 4A applies to goods cleared for home consumption in India, supporting the appellants' claim for a refund in this context.