9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 905 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDenial of rebate claim - Valuation of goods - Valuation as per section 4 or section 4A - Jurisdiction of GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - Held that - there is no dispute with regard to export of goods and compliance of provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Not. No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The conditions and procedure stipulated in Not. No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) stands fully complied with and export of duty paid goods is also established. So, there is no violation of any statutory provisions relating to rebate claim as far as Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Not. No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 is concerned. The rebate claims of ₹ 71,05,078/- was sanctioned whereas balance amount of ₹ 2,85,41,026/- was rejected by original authority which account for 80% of total rebate claim of ₹ 3,56,46,104/-. However, Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the valuation of goods done under Section 4A and held that duty was correctly paid on the value determined under Section 4A. So, he allowed the full rebate claim. Since the 80% of duty paid is disputed on account of valuation dispute, the valuation issue is the major issue in this case. So, the impugned order cannot be called as only relating to rebate claim but it also relates to valuation dispute which is the major issue in this case matter. Government has no jurisdiction to pass order in respect of Order-in-Appeal relating to valuation issue in terms of Section 35EE r/w provision (i) (ii) of Section 35(b)(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The jurisdiction to decide valuation issue lies with the Hon ble CESTAT. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the revision application. 2. Valuation of goods for rebate claims under Section 4 vs. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Applicability of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 to exported goods. 4. Entitlement to rebate of duty paid on exported goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Revision Application: The primary issue examined was whether the revision application filed by the applicant department falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Government noted that Section 35EE allows the Central Government to revise orders related to the rebate of duty on exported goods. However, the case also involved a significant valuation dispute, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble CESTAT as per Section 35B(1). The Government concluded that since the valuation issue is the major issue in this case, the revision application is not maintainable before this authority due to lack of jurisdiction. 2. Valuation of Goods for Rebate Claims: The original authority had sanctioned the rebate claim based on the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and rejected the claim based on the MRP value under Section 4A. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, holding that the duty was correctly assessed and paid under Section 4A, making the respondent eligible for the full rebate. The applicant department argued that the valuation for exported goods should be based on the transaction value under Section 4, not the MRP under Section 4A, citing judgments from the Hon'ble CESTAT in similar cases. 3. Applicability of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011: The applicant department contended that the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, are intended for goods sold within India and not applicable to exported goods. The respondent, however, argued that these provisions apply to their goods, whether for export or domestic sale, and that they are legally obliged to declare the retail sale price on the export goods as per these regulations. 4. Entitlement to Rebate of Duty Paid on Exported Goods: The respondent claimed that the rebate sanctioning authority cannot reassess the duty paid on export goods and that the goods should be assessed under Section 4A for both export and domestic sales. They cited various judgments supporting their position that the provisions of Section 4A override those of Section 4 when applicable. The applicant department countered that the rebate should be based on the transaction value under Section 4, as the MRP-based valuation under Section 4A is not relevant for export goods. Conclusion: The Government concluded that the major issue in this case is the determination of the value of excisable goods exported, which falls outside its jurisdiction. The rebate claim's admissibility depends on the resolution of the valuation issue, which should be addressed by the Hon'ble CESTAT. Consequently, the revision application was rejected for lack of jurisdiction. Order: The revision application stands rejected as non-maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The original authority will process the disputed rebate claim based on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal regarding the valuation issue.
|
