TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be beyond the port of loading of the export goods. Under such circumstances, the place of removal is the port of export where sale takes place. Duty was paid on CIF value as admitted by applicant. The ocean freight and insurance incurred beyond the port, being place of removal in the case cannot be part of transaction value in terms of statutory provisions discussed above. Therefore, rebate of excess duty paid on said portion of value which was in excess of transaction value was rightly denied. Applicant has contended that if rebate is not allowed then the said amount may be allowed to be re-credited in the Cenvat credit account. Applicant is merchant-exporter and then re-credit of excess paid duty may be allowed in Cenvat credit account from where it was paid subject to compliance of provisions of Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - F. No. 195/126/2012-RA - Order No. 97/2014-Cx - Dated:- 26-3-2014 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd., Moti Mahal, 7th Floor, 195, J. Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 against the Order-in-Appeal No. US ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to the respondents to take back the Cenvat credit which is related to Central Excise duty paid on CIF value of the impugned goods. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 26-11-2013 11-3-2014 was not attended by anybody on behalf of the applicant as well as respondent party. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government notes that applicant a merchant-exporter filed rebate claims of ₹ 51,61,636/- in respect of duty paid on exported goods. Since the duty was paid on ARE-1 value which was CIF value, the original authority determined the FOB value as transaction value in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and allowed the rebate of ₹ 49,58,022/- of duty payable on the said transaction value. The part claim of ₹ 2,03,514/- in respect of excess duty paid on value portion in excess of transaction value was rejected. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order-in-original. Now applicant has filed this revision application on the grounds stated above. 8. Government observes that for proper understanding and considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f transportation calculated in accordance with generally accepted principles of costing. Explanation 2. - For removal of doubts, it is clarified that the cost of transportation from the factory to the place of removal, where the factory is not the place of removal, shall not be excluded for the purpose of determining the value of the excisable goods. 8.5 Government observes that from the perusal of above provisions it is clear that the place of removal may be factory/warehouse, a depot, premise of a consignment agent or any other place of removal from where the excisable goods are to be sold for delivery at place of removal. The meaning of word any other place read with definition of Sale , cannot be construed to have meaning of any place outside geographical limits of India. The reason of such conclusion is that as per Section 1 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Act is applicable within the territorial jurisdiction of whole of India and the said transaction value deals with value of excisable goods produced/manufactured within this country. Government observes that once the place of removal is decided within the geographical limit of the country, it cannot be beyond the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of sale . As per the above two Apex Court decisions this will depend on the terms (or conditions of contract) of the sale. The insurance of the goods during transit will, however, not be the sole consideration to decide the ownership or the point of sale of the goods. 8.7 Government observes that the respondent in their counter reply relied upon the C.B.E. C. Circular 203/37/96-CX, dated 26-4-1996 and Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX, dated 3-2-2000. In this regard, the Government observes that w.e.f. 1-7-2000, the concept of transaction value was introduced for valuation of goods under Central Excise Act. Though the CBEC Circular 203/37/96-Cx, dated 26-4-1996 was issued when transaction value concept was not introduced yet the said circular clearly states that AR4 value of excisable goods should be determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 which is required to be mentioned on the Central Excise invoices. Even now the ARE-1 value is to be the value of excisable goods determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 i.e. the transaction value as defined in Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act. CBEC has further reiterated in its subsequent Circular No. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
