9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the course of scrutiny of records, it was noticed that the applicants had' exported duty paid bought out goods by mis-declaring that the goods had been manufactured by them. The applicants after exporting the goods put forward a rebate claim. Subsequently, the amount of Rs. 34,19,623/- was sanctioned which was sought to be recovered on the premise that it was erroneously refunded on the grounds that the applicants had mis-stated facts in seeking the refund. 2.2 A show cause notice was issued to the applicants asking them why the amount of Rs. 34,19,623/- erroneously refunded during the period 2003-04 to 2006-07 should not be recovered under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demanding appropriate in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted. In fact they are excisable goods which themselves had been exported by the applicants. Hence, the impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the rebate claims were erroneously sanctioned to the applicants is incorrect and unsustainable in law. 4.2 In the instant case, the following facts are undisputed both by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) :- (a) The excisable goods in question were duty paid and were covered by proper duty paying documents. (b) The excisable goods which were exported by the applicants were exported in original packed condition. (c) All the excisable goods in question in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdictional Assistant Commissioner TAL to undertake the same exercise which is of no material consequence. As was argued by ld. Counsel for the applicants, a different Assistant Commissioner sanctioning the refund claim involves only an administrative adjustment of funds disbursed as rebate for statistical purposes. Moreover, a similar sanction order No. 1/96 dated 31-5-2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chennai-I Division, Chennai-II Commissionerate in a claim of similar facts has been accepted by the department and no appeal filed against the same. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by TAFE is allowed restoring the order-in-original No. 4/06 RB, dated 21-4-2006. 4.4 In any event of the matter and without prejudice to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom outside. Further, copy of such excise invoices of the suppliers were also filed along with the rebate claims filed by the applicants. Hence, the applicants had filed the documents from which the department could have easily found that the excisable goods in question were procured by the applicants from various suppliers. After verification of all these documents rebate claims filed by the applicants were sanctioned by the proper officer. Therefore, it cannot be held that the applicants have mis-stated or mis-declared that excisable goods exported by them were manufactured by them. Hence, the entire demand is barred by limitation provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 4.6 In fact in another proceedings, the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsustainable in law. 4.9 For the various reasons submitted above, the question of charging interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act does not arise. The impugned order-in-appeal confirming the interest under Section 11AB is incorrect and unsustainable in law. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 7-12-2010 and 8-4-2011. Shri Bharat Raichandani and Shri S. Narayanan, Advocates attended hearing on 7-12-2010 on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on both the dates on behalf of the department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. On perusa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 80 (T). In the said case, Tribunal has held that sanction of refund claim involves an administrative adjustment of funds disbursed as rebate for statistical purposes. Government observes that applicant cannot be penalized by ordering recovery of already sanctioned rebate claims on the grounds for a mistake committed by ACCE who sanctioned the claim without having jurisdiction. Since the payment of duty and export of goods is not in dispute, the rebate cannot be denied on merit also. 9. In view of the above circumstances, Government observe that show cause notice was time barred and therefore proceeding initiated under said SCN is liable to be dropped. As such Government sets aside the impugned order and allows the revision applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
