9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 907 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDenial of rebate claim - assessee paid duty @8.24% instead of @ 4.12% - Duty reduced as per Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended by Notification 4/2008, dated 1-3-2008 and 58/2008-C.E., dated 7-12-2008 - Held that - Notification issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, prescribes the conditions, limitations and procedure to be following for claiming as well as sanctioning rebate claims of duty paid on exported goods. The satisfaction of rebate sanctioning authority requires that rebate claim as per the relevant statutory provisions is to be in order. He does not have the mandate to sanction claim of obviously excess paid duty. Therefore, the circular of 2000 as relied upon by the respondents cannot supersede the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). - what the settled principle of law are that in the interest of natural justice for equity of law, whatever the implications may be i.e. either of benefits/refunds or of liability/recoveries, the applicable date of effect would be same and that can only be the date of coming into effect the applicable legislations as issued for the purpose. Therefore, in this case any plea of ignorance of law cannot be admitted as legal and proper, as such the respondent was required to pay duty @ 4% on 7-12-2008 in terms of Notification 58/2008-C.E., dated 7-12-2008. The rebate of duty paid @ 4.12% in terms of Notification No. 58/2008-C.E., dated 7-12-2008 is admissible to the respondent under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in accepting the ignorance of the assessee and jurisdictional excise officer. 2. Whether the extra money paid due to the reduction in the rate of duty should be treated as duty or an amount to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 3. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the Apex Court judgment. 4. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) order is per incuriam for not considering the provisions of Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Whether the rebate sanctioning authority has the mandate to sanction claims of excess paid duty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Ignorance of the Assessee and Jurisdictional Excise Officer The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the ignorance of the assessee and jurisdictional excise officer regarding the reduction in the rate of duty from 8% to 4% effective from 7-12-2008. The department argued that ignorance of law is not an excuse and the assessee, being a long-time participant in excise, should have been aware of the changes in the law and duty rates. The department cited the case of Rakesh Kanungo v. CCE, Mumbai, emphasizing that ignorance of law is no excuse. Issue 2: Extra Money Paid as Duty or Amount The department contended that the extra money paid due to the reduction in the rate of duty should not be treated as duty but as an "amount" that should be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee argued that they are entitled to a rebate of the entire duty paid on the goods exported, as per Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The assessee relied on Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX., dated 3-2-2000, and case laws such as Gayatri Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE and Bharat Chemicals v. CCE. Issue 3: Overlooking Apex Court Judgment The department alleged that the Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the Apex Court judgment, which was cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) himself. The department referred to several case laws, including Samrat International (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, Karan Associates v. CC (Import), and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Prev.), to emphasize that the correctness of the assessment cannot be challenged in rebate claim proceedings. Issue 4: Provisions of Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 The department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is per incuriam as it does not consider the provisions of Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which stipulates that in case of unconditional exemption, no excess duty is payable. The department cited cases such as CC (Imports) v. Eurotex Industries and Export Ltd. and M/s. Gimatex Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, to support their argument. Issue 5: Mandate of Rebate Sanctioning Authority The department argued that the rebate sanctioning authority should examine and satisfy himself that the rebate claim is in order before sanctioning it. The assessee contended that the rebate sanctioning authority cannot examine the correctness of the assessment at the stage of sanctioning the rebate. The Government noted that the rebate sanctioning authority has to satisfy himself that the claim is in order, as per para 3(b)(ii) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The Government also observed that the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX., dated 3-2-2000, cannot supersede the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). Conclusion: The Government set aside the impugned order for being not legal and proper and allowed the revision application. The Government directed that the excess paid amount may be allowed as recredit in the Cenvat credit account from which duty was paid. The revision application thus succeeded in terms of the above.
|
