9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r para 15 above which clarifies : “That rebate will be allowed even in cases where manufacturers make delayed payment.” - Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment in Omkar Overseas Ltd. v. UOI (2003 (8) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) cited by the applicants also support this view. Thus finally Govt. of India allowed the rebate claim on the condition that the rebate has to be allowed in respect of the claims which are not hit by limitation, provided the duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme is fully discharged by the manufacturer of the goods under Compounded Levy Scheme as per the rate specified by Notification No. 31/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 24-8-98 even for the period 1-8-1997 to 23-8-1998 - The rate of rebate specified is 12% on FOB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequential relief. Based on the said revision order, the Lower adjudicating authority, vide the impugned ten Orders-in-Original, initially sanctioned the rebates @12% of FOB under Notification No. 31/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 24-8-1998 on the ground that the main manufacturer had discharged the duty liability in full. However, the LAA, in respect of certain other claims, issued a show cause notice as to why the said claims should not be rejected. After due process of law, the LAA rejected the said rebate claims. 2.2 Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal against the O-in-O Nos. 24-27/2005, 30, 31, 33-36/2005 wherein the LAA had sanctioned the rebate. GMI is in appeal against the O-in-O No. 6/2006, dated 30-3-2006 wherein the LAA had rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment that the case be decided on merit. I proceed to decide both the appeals filed by the Department and GMI. 5.1 The main grounds of the revenue as observed in Para 2.3 of Revisionary Order No. 870/2010, dated 24-5-2010 are as under : 1. The manufacturer had not paid the duty in time but had paid the duty only after the revision orders for the sole purpose of claiming rebate. 2. Since they have paid only the duty but not the interest and penalty, it cannot be construed that they had discharged the duty liability in full. 3. The rates prescribed in Notification No. 31/98-C.E. (N.T.) cannot be applied to the clearances made under Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 3A. Hence, the rebate is to be restricted to only Rs. 300/-PMT. 5.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment or suppression of facts on the part of the party who was to pay the duty then the exporter cannot be denied rebate". 5.4 Hence, going by the above said circular, the revisionary order and the judgment of Supreme Court, I am of the view that delayed payment of duty in the instant case does not debar GMI from claiming rebate. 5.5 In respect of the non-payment of interest and penalty by the manufacturer (point no. 2 above), it is common knowledge that rebate is of duty paid only and is not of interest and penalty. I am of the view that non-payment of penalty and interest should not be linked to rebate. 5.6 With regard to rate of rebate (point no. 3 above), on perusal of the Notification No. 31/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 24-8- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
