9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 041.230 MTs of iron of steel products (hereinafter referred to as goods ) and claimed ₹ 4,68,553.50 as rebate of central excise duty. 25 claims of the petitioners for a total amount of ₹ 2,86,096.50 were sanctioned. Later, the appellants were served with 25 show cause notices-cum-demands requiring them to repay the amount calculated at ₹ 330/- per MT an amount equivalent to the duty on the billets. The show cause notices were issued on the grounds that rebate on duty paid on the billets was inadmissible. The petitioners also received 18 show cause notices in respect of the claims submitted by them but not sanctioned requiring them to explain as to why their claims to the extent of ₹ 330/- per MT should not be disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paid and the permission to remove the goods on payment of ₹ 120/- per MT has to be taken as acceptance of the fact that the difference at the rate of ₹ 330/- per MT had been paid on such goods and that such payment was not deemed payment. (b) Further arguments of the appellants are that proviso (iii) to Notification No. 197 of 1962, dated 17-11-1962 (as amended) requires that the amount of duty paid on the goods exported and the date of payment thereof is to be established from the Central Excise records to the satisfaction of the Collector. The appellants claimed that in view of Notification No. 43/74-C.E. or 153/77-C.E. they fulfilled the conditions in respect of the duty paid at the billet stage and the AR-4 applications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d six months. They pointed out that the Collector himself ruled out fraudulent action on the part of the petitioners thus limiting the time to six months normally available. 5. Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, the learned Representative for the Respondent, opposing the arguments submitted that only the duty paid on the billets @ ₹ 120/- per MT was available to rebate and not the duty claimed to have been paid on the raw material. He referred to the wording of Notification No. 197/62-C.E. and explained that his argument is based on this notification. He submitted that a notification has to be interpreted strictly. He made particular reference to provisos (i) and (iii) of the Notification 197/62-C.E. 6. We have considered the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation that such a presumption is available. On the other hand, as submitted by the learned representative for the respondent, Nos. (i) and (iii) to Notification No. 197/62 are quite significant. The first proviso reads that except as otherwise provided in the said Table or permitted by the Central Board of Excise Customs by general or special order the goods are exported after payment of duty in cash direct from a factory or a warehouse . Proviso (iii) reads the amount of duty paid on the goods to be exported, and the date of payment thereof are established, from Central Excise records, to the satisfaction of the Collector . These two provisos are quite clear and do not admit of any misunderstanding. It is expected that the goods are ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector has correctly appreciated the legal position when he made the following observations in paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order :- 7. It is also necessary to note that against Sl. No. 7A under Col. (1) of the Table appended to the Notification No. 197/62-C.E., dated the 17th November, 1962 (as amended), rebate of Central Excise duty to the extent of the duty actually paid at the time of clearance from the factory is permissible in case of iron or steel products falling under T.I. 26AA of the said Schedule. However, the rebate as specified under Col. (4) of the aforesaid Table shall not apply to any article in respect of which rebate of duty is allowed under the first schedule to the Customs and Central Excise Duties Export Dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
