Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 666 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate claim - export of Gutkha under - Revenue contested that the pro rata basis payment of monthly duty is in contravention of provision 3 of section 3(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 8 of Pan Masala Rules,2008. The respondent has contested they were issued registration certificate on 15.03.2011 and commences production from 22.04.2011 and as such, he was the new manufacture within the meaning of proviso to sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of the said Pan Masala Packing Machines rules, 2008 and for this reason-duty of April, 2011 was calculated on prorate basis. Such payment is as per proviso to rule 6(3) of the said Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. Held that:- rule (8) of the said Pan Masala Packing Rules, 2008 is applicable to cases where there is alteration In number of operating packing machines. In this case respondent were issued registration on 15.03.2011 and hence, are to be treated as a new manufacturer and hence, their production of "Gutkha" shall be specifically' governed by the proviso to sub rule (3) of Rule (6) of the said Pan Masala PackingRules, 2008. The proviso of sub rule (3) of rule (6) allows payment of duty on pro-rata basis. As such, the applicant who commenced production w.e.f. 22.04.2011 rightly paid duty on pro-rata basis. Under such circumstances, Government concurs with observation of Commissioner (Appeals) that allegation of short payment by the respondent is not tenable. Trade Notice No. 20/2011 dated 20.09.2011 issued on the basis of CBEC Circular F.No.528/69/2011-STO(TI) dated 30.08.2011 clarifying distinction between sachets and carry bags, cannot have retrospective effect. The clarification issued by Chief Commissioner Lucknow was binding on the Central Excise officers and as such the rebate allowed for duty paid on exported goods at the relevant time cannot now attract the provisions of condition 3(g) of Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. Departmental authorities are bound by Circular/Instruction and they have to comply with the same. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Paper Products Ltd. Vs. CCE [1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that Circular/Instructions issued by CBEC are binding on departmental authorities. They cannot take contrary stand and department cannot repudiate a Circular on the basis that it was inconsistent with the statutory provision. Apex court has further held that department’s actions have to be consistent with circulars, consistency and discipline are of far greater importance than, winning or losing court proceedings. In view of said principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the instructions issued by Chief Commissioner Lucknow were rightly followed by departmental Central Excise officers. - No infirmity in impugned Orders-in-Appeal - Decided against Revenue.
|