TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the said circular. In view of said categorical clarification of CBEC in the matter Commissioner appeal has rightly allowed the rebate claim in terms of Notification No. 31/98-CE (NT) dt. 24-08-98 for the period 01-08-97 to 23-08-98. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue. - F.No. 198/187-A/12-RA - 150/14-CX - Dated:- 15-4-2014 - SHRI D.P. SINGH, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER This revision application is filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai against the Orders-in-Appeal No. 22/2012 (M-1) 02/12 (M-I) D dated 21.03.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. M/s. Goyal Metal Industries (P) Ltd. is the respondent in this case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Goyal Metal Industries (P) Ltd. are merchant exporters of M/s. United Metal Industries, who are manufacturers of non-alloy steel falling under chapter 72 of CETA, 1985. M/s. Goyal Metal Industries (P) Ltd. had filed various rebate claims. The brief history of the case as reported in impugned Order-in-Original is given under:- In 1997, the goods falling under chapter 72 were brought under compounded Levy Scheme. The Commissioner provisionally determined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of periods where export goods were cleared. The claims were however subjected to verification and other conditions. In the mean while, the Commissioner of Chennai-I passed order-in-Original Nos. 3 to 7/2003 dated 27-03-2003, wherein a duty liability of ₹ 1,17,84,627/- was confirmed against the said manufacturer and penalty of ₹ 1,17,84,627/- was imposed. The manufacturer paid the diity amount fully but only a part of interest and penalty. 2.4 Since the revision order passed by GOI stated that the rebate will be allowed even in cases, where manufacturer makes delayed payment of duty under provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944, rebate claims were filed afresh, as consequential relief. 2.5 Hence-the Assistant commissioner, 'D' Division passed 10 Orders-in-Original as detailed below sanctioning the rebate on the grounds that the assessee had discharged the duty liability in full. Sl. No. OIO No. date Amount 1 24/05 dt. 13-06-2005 739386 2 25/05 dt. 15-06-2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebate will be allowed even in cases where the manufactures make delayed payment'. He also placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in Omkar Overseas Ltd. Vs UOI reported in 2003 (156) ELT 167 (SC) wherein it was held that 'once it has been held that there was no fraud, collusion or any wilful to pay the duty then the exporter cannot be denied rebate'. He also stated that non-payment of penalty an interest should not be linked to rebate. He also stated that with regard to rebate, on perusal of Notification No. 31/98-CE (NT) dated 24-08-1998 and Board' Circular No. 418/51/98-CX dated 02-09-1998 it is clear that neither the said notification nor the circular lays down any condition that for entitlement of 12% of FOB value the duty paid should be higher than the rebate claimed. 3. Based on the above findings, Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the Order-in-Original No. 06/2006 RF dated 30-03-2006 and upheld the Order-in-Original Nos. 24-27/2005, 30,31,33-36/2005 of the orders passed by Original authority sanctioning rebate claims and rejected the department appeals. 4. Being aggrieved by the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be set aside and the GOI may pass such orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 5. The Show cause notices were issued to the respondents under section 129DD of Central Excise Act, 1944 to file their counter reply. The respondent in their written reply mainly reiterated the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21-03-2012. 6. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 20-03-2014 21-03-2014 at Chennai was attended by Dr. S.Periyannan, ACCE, ID' Division, Chennai-I on behalf of the applicant department who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Shri M.Karthikeyan, advocate attended hearing on behalf of the respondent who pleaded to uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 8. The department has mainly contended that respondent has filed appeal before CESTAT Chennai as to whether ACP cf the manufacturer shall be determined under rule 3 or 5 of the Hot re-rolling determination Rules 1997 and also an appeal is pending before Supreme Court ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18/51/98-Cx dt. 02-09-98, rebate will be allowed even in cases where manufacturer makes delayed payment of duty in these case and rebate claim was rightly held admissible to the respondents in terms of said CBEC circular. 10. Government notes that issue regarding admissibility of rebate @ 12% of FOB value during the period 01-08-97 to 23-08-98 has been allowed in CBEC circular No. 473/39/99-Cx dt. 27-07-99 (F. 209/05/98-Cx-6). The said circular is reproduced below:- Subject : Rebate of excise duty paid on ingots and billets of non-alloy steel and hot re-rolled products of non steel notified under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from 1.8.97 to 23.8.98 - Instructions regarding l am directed to say that a doubt has arisen whether the rebate of central excise duty paid on ingots billets of non-alloy steel and hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel notified under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from 1.897 (the day re-roiled material and induction furnace goods were covered under this. levy based on capacity of production) and 23.8.98 (the preceding day to the date when notifications providing method of computation of reba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
