2009 (10) TMI 396 - AT - Customs

Rebate- The Assessee have fraudulently claimed excess rebate amount of Rs.60,432/- on the excisable goods exported by them during the period from January 2006 to January 2007 (as detailed in Annexure I) by claiming rebate of duty paid on CIF (Cost Insurance Freight) value instead of FOB (Free on Board) Value. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. Commissioner (Appeals) held that, if an assessee discharges the duty liability on the value which is higher than the value and if the said assessment is not challenged by the revenue on the duty paying documents subsequently in an appeal whereby rebate has been sanctioned, the assessment cannot be called on for the correctness. Held that- not find any reason for interference with the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Reduction of rebate amount due to payment of duty on CIF value instead of FOB value.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order reducing the rebate amount paid to the respondent due to the duty being paid on the CIF value instead of the FOB value for consignment exports. The Revenue argued that the respondent fraudulently claimed excess rebate by using the CIF value, which included insurance and freight charges, instead of the FOB value. The Revenue contended that the Board Circular specified the FOB value as the correct value for such calculations.

The authorized representative for the respondent acknowledged that duty was indeed paid on the CIF value, and the relevant documents were duly assessed by the authorities. The main contention revolved around the eligibility of the respondent to receive a rebate in cash for the difference between the CIF and FOB values. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the duty was paid on the CIF value, and the Board Circular clarified that the rebate authority should focus on the admissibility of the rebate, not the assessment correctness.

The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced various precedents and circulars to support the respondent's claim for rebate in cash based on the duty paid on the CIF value. The circulars highlighted that the rebate authority should not question the duty assessment but only assess the rebate's admissibility. The Tribunal further emphasized that the duty payment method should not impact the rebate eligibility, as seen in previous judgments.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order, stating that it was correct and free from any defects. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent's eligibility for the rebate in cash based on the duty paid on the CIF value for the consignment exports.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the importance of adhering to the duty payment method specified in the Board Circular and emphasized that the rebate authority should focus on the rebate's admissibility rather than questioning the duty assessment. The decision highlighted the consistency in granting rebates based on the duty paid, regardless of the value used for payment, and reinforced the principle that duty payment method should not affect rebate eligibility.