Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2013 (1) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 728 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDenial of rebate claim - Applicable rate of duty - Applicable notification Notification No. 2/08-C.E., dated 1-3-2008 or Notification No. 4/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - Held that:- there cannot be any strict statutory relied upon citation which can be taken as guiding precedents because each one of above citation have different background of factual merits pertaining to manufacturers manufacturing goods of different sub-headings following different set of Notifications, choosing different beneficial schemes and changing thereof in between a given financial year thereby leading to arise of different question of law. Both the Notifications prescribed effective rates of duty. Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. prescribed nil rate of duty provided manufacturer does not avail Cenvat credit on inputs. This clarification does not say that duty can be paid at tariff rate when the exemption notification is existing. Simultaneously availment of these notifications is allowed in the said circular as they pertain to different situation like whether he is availing cenvat credit or not. This circular is of no help to the applicant as in their case there are no two conditional notifications prescribing two effective rates. Moreover, there is no such circular issued in case of pharmaceutical products pertaining to Notification in question allowing their simultaneous availment. The other Circular No. 937/27/2010-CX., dated 26-11-2010 is not applicable as in the instant case there is no applicability of provisions of Section 5A(1A) of Central Excise Act, 1944. W.e.f. 1-7-2000, the concept of transaction value was introduced for valuation of goods under Central Excise Act and therefore said Circular issued prior to the introduction of transaction value concept, cannot be strictly applied after 1-7-2000. As per Para 3(b)(ii) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, the rebate sanctioning authority has to satisfy himself that rebate claim is in order before sanctioning the same. If the claim is in order he shall sanction the rebate either in whole or in part. There is no mandate to sanction rebate claim of obviously excess paid duty and then initiate proceeding for recovery of the erroneously paid rebate claim. Therefore, the Circular of 2000 as relied upon by applicant cannot supersede the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). Adjudicating authority has rightly passed the order-in-original in accordance with law. The amount paid in excess of duty payable on one’s own volition cannot be retained by Government and it has to be returned to manufacturer/applicant in the manner in which it was paid. Applicant are not eligible to claim rebate of duty paid @ 10% i.e. General Tariff Rate of Duty ignoring the effective rate of duty @ 4% or 5% in terms of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended. As such Government is of considered view that rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of duty i.e. 4% or 5% in terms of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended, as applicable on the relevant date on the transaction value of exported goods determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. - rebate claims are admissible of the duty paid at effective rate of duty @ 4% or 5% in terms of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended as applicable on the relevant date on the transaction value of exported goods determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount of duty paid in excess of duty payable at effective rate of 4% or 5% as per Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. is to be treated as voluntary deposit with the Government. - Moreover Government cannot retain the said amount paid without any authority of law. Therefore, Government allows the said amount to be re-credited in the Cenvat credit account of the concerned manufacturer - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|