9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 5 (RKS)CE/JPR-I/2008, dated 11-1-08 with respect to order-in-original No. 216/2007-08(Refd), dated 3-8-07 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the applicant, engaged in manufacture of Automobile Tyres falling under Chapter No. 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 had filed rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of the goods exported by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 254-255 (GRM)CE/JPR-I/2007, dated 10-8-07 had modified the earlier order-in-original against which the applicant had filed appeals by holding that once the rebate claims initially filed within the stipulated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the amount paid on freight and insurance charges. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders-in-original, applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same being time-barred. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd., Bhiwadi has filed the revision applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The revision application raises two questions : (a) Can rebate claim under Rule 18 be restricted to the duty payable on the goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the duty actually paid? (b) Can the letter dated 24-6-07 of the applicants to san ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid duty on a value which included freight element in it. (iii) In support of the above submissions, the applicant place reliance on the Board Circular 510/06/2000-CX., dated 3-2-2000 which specifically provides that there is no need for reducing rebate. Similarly, the applicants also place reliance on para 18 of Board Circular 354/81/2000-TRU, dated 30-6-2000 wherein the Board has clarified that exclusion of transportation is allowed only if the assessee has shown them separately in the invoice. It further says if the assessee has a system of pricing and sale at uniform prices inclusive of freight, no deductions will be permissible on account of freight. It is settled legal position that the above Board Circulars are bindin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-original, the subsequent request made to sanction by recredit is not a fresh claim at all. The claim of Cenvat recredit can never be considered as fresh rebate claim at all. In the reply to Show Cause Notice itself, the applicants made an alternate plea to sanction the disputed amount by way of recredit. Therefore the filing of a letter cannot be considered as a fresh refund claim for the purpose of computing the limitation under Section 11B. 4.4 The relevant date defined under Section 11B relates to the date on which the goods for export have moved out of the Indian Customs barrier. There is no dispute that the amount in question formed part of the original claim which was filed well within the normal period of limitation prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers-in-original and orders-in-appeal. 7. From the perusal of records, Government observed that the applicant has exported the goods under claim of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original adjudicating officer sanctioned the rebate claims of duty paid on the transaction value as determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rejected the claim of the amount of duty paid on freight and insurance charges which post-factory removal charges. Subsequently, the applicant made a request vide their letter dated 24-6-2007 to allow the receipt in the cenvat account in respect of the duty paid in respect of freight and insurance charges which was rejected as time-barred. 8. In this regards, Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
