9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in part will depend on admissibility of claim as per laid down parameters. So the provisions of Notification authorizes the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise to sanction the rebate claim only to the extent it is admissible. The C.B.E. & C. Circular, dated 3-2-2000 was issued prior to the said Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. So the provision of Notification will prevail. Original rebate sanctioning authority has already examined the rebate claims in the manner elaborated above. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) herein has also after due consideration of the same has upheld the sanction of said rebate claims upto the limit of duty payable on FOB value which was transaction value of goods in this case. Government finds itself in conformity with the findings in said orders. Government therefore upholds the impugned Order-in-Appeal being perfectly legal and proper. - Decided against assessee. - F. No. 195/132/2011-RA - Order No. 1744/2012-CX - Dated:- 10-12-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s. Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore against the Order-in-Appeal No. 324/2010, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal) towards outward freight and insurance is to be separated from the CIF value so as to arrive at the Section 4 value for the purpose of claim of rebate. On deducting the freight and insurance, the ARE-1 value is ₹ 38,79,998/- and not ₹ 41,19,335/- towards an amount of ₹ 3,81,861/- which had been granted as rebate in cash in full originally ought to have been restricted to ₹ 3,54,437/- in cash and the balance amount of TRs. 27,424/- should have been granted as rebate in credit account to the claimant s Cenvat credit account inasmuch as and the erroneously rebate amount of ₹ 27,424/- granted in cash to be recovered in cash in terms of the said Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Act along with the notifications and the clarificatory circulars issued thereunder. The de novo order also granted the claimant the liberty to take the amount of ₹ 27,424/- as credit in their Cenvat account subsequent to its payment in cash account. As the rebate was claimed and subsequently granted erroneously, the de novo rebate sanctioning authority also upheld the demand for interest towards the erroneously claimed sum of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Tirunelveli - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Chennai). 4.5 The applicants submit that when no duty has been discharged on freight and insurance components as evident from ARE-1, there is no question of paying excess amount with interest and therefore, the original rebate sanctioned vide Order-in-Original No. 65/2008, dated 4-4-2008 is in order. 4.6 The applicants submit that in view of what has been stated in the aforesaid paras, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable in law. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 8-10-2012. Nobody appeared for personal hearing. The applicant party vide their letter dated 3-10-2012 have requested to decide the case on merit. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government notes that in this matter the applicant exporter was sanctioned rebate claims by the original authority to the extent of duty payable on F.O.B. value as shown in respective shipping bills, which has been taken as transaction value in terms of provisions of Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had paid an amount as shown in the Bank realization certificate. In any case the respondents are not liable to pay Central Excise duty on the CIF value of the goods but the Central Excise duty is to be paid on transaction value of the goods as prescribed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, it is also fact that the respondents have paid excess duty to the tune of ₹ 2,35,192/- which is to be refunded to the respondents in the manner in which it was paid. 9.5 In view of facts and circumstances, Govt. is of the considered opinion that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is not maintainable and Govt. accordingly sets aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. Govt. also permits the respondents to take back the Cenvat credit of ₹ 2,35,192/- which is related to Central Excise duty paid on CIF value of the impugned goods. As such the CIF value cannot be the value in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. Applicant has relied upon C.B.E. C. Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX, dated 3-2-2000 and contended that jurisdiction to determine correct value of goods cleared from factory is with jurisdictional officers of the factory and not with the office of Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
