Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2010 (5) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 633 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate - amount paid as duty on freight & insurance charges - rebate of duty is to be allowed of the duty paid on the transaction value of the goods as determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rebate on the amount of duty paid in respect of post-clearances expenses like freight and insurances may be allowed as recredit entry in their cenvat account Held that - Government cannot retain the amount collected without any authority of law and the same has to be returned to the applicant in the manner it was paid. Hence, Government observes that the applicant is entitled for credit in their cenvat account in respect of the amount paid as duty on freight & insurance charges. The applicant was not even required to make a request with the department for allowing this recredit in their cenvat account. The adjudicating officer/Commissioner (Appeals) could have themselves allowed this instead of rejecting the same as time-barred, Government allows to take credit in their cenvat account of the amount paid as duty on freight and insurance charges. The impugned orders-in-appeal and orders-in-original are modified to this extent, Revision applications are disposed off in above terms.
Issues:
Revision applications challenging orders-in-appeal rejecting rebate claims and refund requests under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: 1. The revision applications were filed by M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. against orders-in-appeal and orders-in-original related to rebate claims for exported goods. 2. The applicant had filed rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which were initially returned with queries but resubmitted later. 3. The sanctioning authority approved rebates but rejected refund requests on the grounds of limitation under Section 11B in certain cases. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as time-barred, leading to the revision applications before the Central Government. 5. The revision applications raised two main questions regarding the interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. The applicants argued that the rebate should not be restricted to duty payable under Section 4 of the Act and cited relevant notifications and circulars supporting their claim. 7. Judicial decisions were also cited to strengthen the argument regarding the interpretation of the rebate provisions. 8. The applicants' request for refund by recredit in Cenvat Account was treated as a fresh claim by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), leading to a time-barred rejection. 9. The applicants contended that the recredit request was part of the original claim and not a fresh claim, supported by legal precedents and decisions. 10. The Central Government, after reviewing the case records, observed that duty rebate should be allowed on transaction value under Section 4 and duty on post-clearance expenses could be granted as recredit in the Cenvat account. 11. The Government found that the applicant was entitled to the credit for duty paid on freight and insurance charges and modified the orders-in-appeal and orders-in-original accordingly. 12. The revision applications were disposed of in favor of the applicant based on the above findings. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the revision applications, the arguments presented by the applicant, relevant legal provisions, and the final decision rendered by the Central Government in the matter.
|