9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure and clearance of excisable goods viz. electric motor cars falling under Heading 87039010 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for export availing the benefit of advance licence under the DEEC scheme in terms of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004. They are also availing the facility of Cenvat credit on the inputs and input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This is a de novo order passed by the lower authority consequent upon issue of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 338 & 339/2008-C.E., dated 30-10-2008 wherein the case was remanded for de novo decision with a direction for determination of value under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The lower authority in the impugned order after considering all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate. On deducting the freight and insurance, the ARE-1 value is Rs. 38,79,998/- and not Rs. 41,19,335/- towards an amount of Rs. 3,81,861/- which had been granted as rebate in cash in full originally ought to have been restricted to Rs. 3,54,437/- in cash and the balance amount of TRs. 27,424/- should have been granted as rebate in credit account to the claimant's Cenvat credit account inasmuch as and the erroneously rebate amount of Rs. 27,424/- granted in cash to be recovered in cash in terms of the said Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Act along with the notifications and the clarificatory circulars issued thereunder. The de novo order also granted the claimant the liberty to take the amount of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the Board's Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX., dated 3-2-2000, the Board has clarified that the rebate sanctioning authority should not examine the correctness of assessment but should examine only the admissibility of rebate of the duty paid on goods covered by a claim. The applicants submit that this Circular has been followed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Maini Precision Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (252) E.L.T. 409 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 4.3 The applicants submit that the legal position which emerges from the what has been stated in the aforesaid paras is that if an assessee discharges the duty liability on the value which is higher than the value and if the said assessment is not challenged by the Revenue on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respective shipping bills, which has been taken as "transaction value in terms of provisions of Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant herein is claiming that their actual "transaction value" in these cases is the CIF value upon which the duty has actually been paid and hence their balance amounts of claimed rebate should also be granted to them. In support of their contentions, they are relying upon the case laws and actual contract/order of the foreign buyer as in Para 4 above have also desired that in case of otherwise, they should be allowed "re-credits" of such disputed amounts. 8. Government observes that original authority has found the FOB value declared in Shipping Bills as the transaction value i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould agree with the contention of the Applicant Commissioner that as per provisions of Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(2)(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 the value in terms of Section 4 should be the amount that the buyer of the exported goods is liable to pay. In the instant case, the buyer of the exported goods had paid an amount as shown in the Bank realization certificate. In any case the respondents are not liable to pay Central Excise duty on the CIF value of the goods but the Central Excise duty is to be paid on transaction value of the goods as prescribed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, it is also fact that the respondents have paid excess duty to the tune of Rs. 2,35,192/- which is to be refunded to the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse or, as the case may be, Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise shall compare the duplicate copy of application received from the officer of customs with the original copy received from the exporter and with the triplicate copy received from the Central Excise Officer and if satisfied that the claim is in order, he shall sanction the rebate either in whole or in part." The provisions contained in said Para 3(b)(ii) clearly stipulate that Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over factory of manufacture or the Maritime Commissioner of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
