TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sanctioning rebate claims of duty paid on exported goods. The satisfaction of rebate sanctioning authority requires that rebate claim as per the relevant statutory provisions is to be in order. He does not have the mandate to sanction claim of obviously excess paid duty. Therefore, the circular of 2000 as relied upon by respondents cannot supersede the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Duty was required to be paid @ 8% on said goods on 24-2-2009, and rebate is admissible of duty paid @ 8% only under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notifn. No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Any plea of ignorance of law cannot be admitted as legal and proper. - Decided against assessee. - F. No. 198/294/2011-RA - Order No. 134/2013-CX - Dated:- 15-2-2013 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri C.A. Jose, Manager Excise, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigarh against the order-in-appeal No. YDB/122/RGD/10, dated 17-2-2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II, Mumbai. 2. Brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of 10%. 3.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in its findings inasmuch as : (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the ignorance on part of the assessee and jurisdictional excise officer. (ii) The money extra paid on account of reduction of rate of duty does not to be treated as duty but the amount and it is required to be transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (iii) The Commissioner (Appeals) overlooked the Apex Court judgment which was cited by Commissioner (Appeals) himself. (iv) The order-in-appeal is per incuriam inasmuch as it does not considers the explanation (1A) to Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, which states as follows : for removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an exemption under sub-section (1) in respect of any excisable goods from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon has been granted absolutely, the manufacturer of such goods shall not pay the duty of excise on such goods . 3.3 The ignorance of law is not an excuse to pay the duty at higher rate. The goods are self-assessed by the assessee and the assessee who are in Excise for so many years, it is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 at Mumbai was attended by Shri C.A. Jose, Manager Excise, on behalf of the respondent who stated that impugned order-in-appeal may be upheld. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of the applicant department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. On perusal of records, it is observed that there is no dispute on the factual details of the completion of impugned exports of pharmaceuticals products of Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff after clearance of the same on 24-2-2009 by paying Central Excise duty @ 10% whereas on or after 24-2-2009 reduced rate of duty @ 8% was applicable in terms of Notification No. 4/2009-C.E., dated 24-2-2009. The department has argued that a duty was required to be paid @ 8% and not at 10% on 24-2-2009 and therefore excess payment of duty of ₹ 3,47,048/- cannot be rebated. 8. Government notes that Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted that notification changing effective rate of duty takes effect from the date of publication of notification in Official Gazette as held in Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of UOI v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj - 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim is in order before sanctioning the same. If the claim is in order he shall sanction the rebate either in whole or in part. The said para 3(b)(ii) is reproduced below :- 3(b) Presentation of claim for rebate to Central Excise :- (i) (ii) The Assistant 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 said provisions of this notification clearly stipulate that after examining the rebate claim, the rebate sanctioning authority will sanction the claim in whole or part as the case may be depending on facts of the case. Any other plea of scope of limits of rebate sanctioning authority without review/challenge of such self-assessments it is emphasized that when cited case of M/s. Priya Blue In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
