9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time barred and therefore proceeding initiated under said SCN is liable to be dropped, revision application succeeds - - - 454/2011-CX - Dated:- 3-5-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Bharat Raichandani and S. Narayana, Advocates, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. [Order]. This revision application is filed by Ms. Tata Johnson Control Automotive Ltd., Pune against the order-in-appeal No. P-I/VSK/112/09 dated 29-4-2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I Commissionerate, Pune. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 To briefly recount the facts, during the course of scrutiny of records, it was noticed that the applicants had exported duty paid bought out good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Government on the following grounds :- 4.1 The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the excisable goods exported by the applicants are material used in the manufacture of goods exported, is incorrect. It is undisputed that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules provides for grant of rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or the duty paid on the materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods. The excisable goods in question which were exported by the applicants were cleared in original packing condition. Therefore, they were not the materials used in the manufacture of finished goods exported. In fact they are excisable goods which themselves had been exported by the applicants. Hence, the impugned order-in-appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim filed by the applicants were entertained by the original authority and the rebate sanctioned. In review order of the original authority was not found to be defective except for the lack of jurisdiction. The lower appellate authority has waived the statutory requirement of filing the rebate claim within the time limit prescribed under Section 11B before the competent authority. As the rebate claim was found to be in order in review except for the jurisdictional aspect, I find that it is not necessary for the applicants to approach the jurisdictional 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 sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exported has not been disputed either in the show cause notice or in the orders passed by the lower authorities. In other words, even though the applicants have mentioned in Col. 2 of the ARE-1 the name and address of the applicants under the heading particulars of manufacturers of the goods and his Central Excise Registration number , they had also in column 10 of the same ARE-1 had specifically mentioned the excise invoice number of the supplier. This would clearly show that the applicants were exporting the goods procured by them from 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 departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bringing the same to the factory have been exporting the same in original packed condition under claim for rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules. These rebate claims have been sanctioned from time to time after due verification of various documents filed by the applicants. Hence the ingredients of Section 11AC for imposition of penalty are not applicable to the present case. Hence, the impugned order-in-appeal confirming the penalty imposed under Section 11AC is incorrect and unsustainable 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 und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no suppression of facts on the part of applicant and extended time period cannot be invoked in the case. As such, show cause notice issued after one year is clearly time barred and recovery proceedings do not sustain as per law. 8. As regards, sanctioning of rebate claim by ACCE who was not proper officer for sanctioning these claims, Government observes that such sanctions cannot be treated illegal in view of decision of Hon ble Tribunal in the case of TAFE Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported as 2008 (227) E.L.T. 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 rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
