9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, as of ground of rejection of impugned rebate claim. This Show Cause Notice of dated 24-11-2009 was decided by jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide Order No. 06/2010-11 dated 30-4-2010 in the favour of applicant by dropping demand of duty on the ground that the party had rightly paid amount of Rs. 7,66,129/- on pro rata basis for the month of March, 2009 (from 13-3-2009 to 31-3-2009). Government finds that once the payment of duty pro rata basis for relevant month has been held as correct by jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Order dated 30-4-2010 has no relevance on impugned case of rejection of rebate claim. Government do not agree with this observation of Commissioner (Appeals). Once, the show cause notice issued for recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly known as Gutkha falling under Tariff Items No. 24039990 and were paying duty under the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 issued under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 29/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-7-2008, 30/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-7-2008 and 42/2008-C.E., dated 1-7-2008. The applicants filed a rebate claim under Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-8-2008 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of Gutkha pouches exported by them along with relevant documents. It was observed that the applicants were paying duty under the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 7,67,000/- cannot be considered as proper and appropriate duty on one FFS machine for March, 2009. Rule 9 of the said Rules ibid and clause (i) of the Notification No. 42/2008-C.E., dated 1-7-2008 expressly debar grant of rebate claim on the exported goods unless and until Central Excise duty has been paid thereon. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 Adjudicating authority and appellate authority failed to appreciate that Rule 10 of the Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Government by issuing Notification No. 8/2010-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-2-2010 which amended Rule 9 of the Pan Masala Rules by inserting eighth proviso to Rule 9. Adjudicating authority and appellate authority failed to appreciate that the above amending Notification is clarificatory in nature, clarifying intention of the Legislature behind framing of the Pan Masala Rules shall have retrospective effect. Therefore, duty paid by the applicant on proportionate basis for the period of production w.e.f. 13-3-2009 till the end of March, 2009 has been paid correctly and in consequence the rebate claim is admissible to the applicant. 4.5 Adjudicating authority and appellate authority failed to appreciate that the Assistant Commissioner of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-8-2008, to claim the rebate of duty paid on notified goods the duty should have been paid on excisable goods under Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 as prescribed under Table-1 of the Notification No. 42/2008-C.E., dated 1-7-2008. According to the said Notification No. 42/2008-C.E. the duty prescribed in respect of one FFS machine manufacturing pouches of RSP Re. 1/- was Rs. 12.50 Lacs, since during the relevant month, the number of machines in operation was one, amount of Rs. 12.50 Lacs was the duty required to be paid under the Notification No. 30/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-7-2008 issued under Section 3A. Since the amount of Rs. 7.67 Lacs was paid, it cannot be said to be the duty require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original. Now, applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para above. 9. Government observes that the original authority rejected the rebate mainly on the grounds that the part payment of Rs. 7,67,000/- by claiming abatement of 12 days is not proper and appropriate as much as abatement should be for the continuous period of 15 days under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. In this regard, Government further notes that same jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-I, Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-I issued another Show Cause Notice dated 24-11-2009, where in differential duty of Rs. 4,83,871/- (12,00,000-7,66, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
