9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were used in the production were on account of export of goods and there is no dispute regarding the export of goods, foreign remittance and proof of export - It is also found that the distinction made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the export under LUT is different from export under rebate is against the export policy because the exported goods are not subject to central excise duty and the entire situation is revenue neutral. Inspite of the direction of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of the impugned order, the lower authority failed to calculate the duty even after the expiry of 10 years. The decision relied upon by the Ld. DR in the case of JAY CEE AUTO FAB (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., FARIDABAD [ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was being charged in addition to the sale amount recovered from the parties and in view of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000, tool and dies development charges form the part of the assessable value as additional consideration and are thus liable to Central Excise duty. It was stated in the show cause notice that the appellant had realized tool and development charges of Rs. 74,01,143.00 (Rs. 74,01,143.00 (Exports) + Rs. 25,000.00 (Domestic)) from various buyers on sale invoices issued to them on which central excise duty of Rs. 9,96,674.00 was not paid and hence the same was demanded along with interest and proposal for imposition of penalty. 3. The appellant filed reply to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch information has been received by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the case records. 7. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and law. He further submitted that entire charges received on account of export of goods and the appellant is entitled to claim rebate of duty since there is no dispute of export of goods, foreign remittance and also submission of proof of exports. He further submitted that the distinction made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the export under LUT is different from export under rebate is against the export policy as the exported goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite of the direction of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of the impugned order, the lower authority failed to calculate the duty even after the expiry of 10 years. 11. Further, we find that the decision relied upon by the Ld. DR is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because the said decision relates to additional consideration which is to be included in the assessable value in terms of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 pertains to the domestic sale and not export of goods and hence, the said decision is not applicable in the present case because here the entire proceedings relates to export of goods. 12. In view of discussion above, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
