2015 (3) TMI 863 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Denial on ground that amount paid on part of ARE-1 value over and above the FOB value is not the duty of Central Excise but is to be treated as excess payment - rebate in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is the rebate of Central Excise Duty paid on the exported goods - Held that - As per section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 Central Government on the application of any person aggrieved by any order passed under section 35 A where order is of the nature referred to in the first proviso to section 35B(1) annul or modify such order provided that Central Government in its discretion refuse to admit an application in respect of an order where amount of duty or fine or penalty determined by such order does not exceed five thousand rupees. In this case disputed rebate claim amount is only ₹ 3,624/- and therefore in view of provisions of first proviso to section 35EE(1), Government is not inclined to accept said revision application and rejects the same. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of rebate claim by Commissioner (Appeals)
2. Revision application filed under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944
3. Interpretation of provisions related to revision applications by Central Government

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of a rebate claim of INR 3,624 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department contended that the rebate claim was wrongly sanctioned as the ARE-1 value exceeded the FOB value, leading to an "excess payment" not eligible for rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Department's appeal and disallowed the rebate claim.

2. Subsequently, the applicant filed a revision application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Central Government challenging the impugned order-in-appeal. During the personal hearings, both parties reiterated their grounds, with the applicant seeking to contest the disallowance of the rebate claim.

3. The Central Government, upon reviewing the case records, submissions, and the impugned orders, noted that the disputed rebate claim amount was INR 3,624. Referring to the provisions of the first proviso to section 35EE(1), the Central Government highlighted that it has the discretion to refuse admission of an application if the duty or penalty amount does not exceed five thousand rupees. Given that the disputed amount fell within this threshold, the Central Government rejected the revision application, citing the statutory limitations.

4. Consequently, the Central Government, in line with the statutory provisions, rejected the revision application, thereby upholding the disallowance of the rebate claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The decision was based on the specific monetary limit set forth in the relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the statutory framework governing the admission of revision applications in excise matters.