TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment subsequently cannot also be a reason to deny rebate of part of the duty paid later as per the contract with the assessee’s buyer. The exporter is entitled to rebate of the entire duty of excise paid by it on clearance of goods for export - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/720/2007/MAS - 1431/2008 - Dated:- 8-12-2008 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Shri P. Karthikeyan, JJ. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - In the impugned order, the Commissioner demanded an amount of Rs. 4,50,13,457/- from the appellants M/s. Sterlite Industries (I) Limited (Sterlite) being erroneously allowed rebate. He held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India. The rebate is sanctioned on the basis of the ARE1 accompanying the export consignment. The ARE-1 is received by the rebate sanctioning authority directly from the Range Superintendent. We find that in the instant cases the assessee had initially raised an invoice for the export value of each consignment provisionally and raised supplementary invoice for the differential value determined based on the applicable LME price of copper as per the contract between Sterlite and its foreign customer. The CIF price is declared in the invoice. Any amount of duty found to have been short paid on the basis of provisional price declared in the invoice at the time of removal is made go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im for the said amount cannot be denied on the ground that rebate is admissible only on the duty on the FOB value and not on the CIF value as long as the same represents the transaction value. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the entire amount of Rs. 16,10,23,430/- including the impugned amount of Rs. 4,50,13,457/- under supplementary invoices had been paid by the assessee as excise duty on the transaction value of the goods. There is also no dispute that the export consignments had suffered the differential duty on the value shown in the connected supplementary invoices raised on the foreign buyer. The Commissioner rejected the claim for rebate of this differential duty to the tune of Rs. 4,50,13,457/- on the ground that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
