TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that in catena of its judgments, it has been held that rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of duty i.e. 4% in terms of Notification No.4/06-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended, as applicable on the relevant date on the transaction value of exported goods determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Ratio of said judgments will be applicable to this case also. As regards the issue of date of Mates Receipt is concerned, the applicant contended that they have submitted fresh copy of the relevant Mate Receipt which shows the date as 05.02.3009, this aspect may be condoned. In this regard Government finds no merit in the plea of the applicant as nothing is placed on record to show that the fresh Mate's Receipt was produced before the concerned authorities and that suitable amendments were made in the relevant documents viz. ARE-I etc. Therefore, it is rightly held by the lower authorities that goods could not have been exported prior to clearance from factory and rebate is liable for rejection on this ground alone. Revision application rejected - Decided against the revision applicant. - F.No.195/496-497/13-RA - ORDER NO. 48-49/2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st based on such undertaking the Respondents have sanctioned number of rebate claims and this fact is known to respondents also. Still, as this is one of the requirement of the Respondents, the Appellants submit herewith the copy of Bank Realization certificate for the goods exported vide Shipping Bill No. 4364618 dated 01.07.2011 thus one of the ground on which the rebate claim is thus squashed. This is for the simple reason that the customer of the Appellants have received the goods and released the payment. Since the goods have reached the destination, the export is established 4.1.2 That the total number of cartoon pallets mentioned in ARE-I No.715 dated 30.06.2011 is also tallied with the number of cartons as shown in Shipping Bill No.4364618 dated 01.07.2012. Only the container No. shown in B/L is HLXU 8701879 with seal Nos.00195, which is not tallied with (i) container No. TRLU 1777965 seal No.545386 shown in Shipping Bill and (ii) container No. TRLU 1777965, seal No.817221 shown in Mate Receipt. 4.1.3 This action is worthwhile for the purpose of comparing the particulars of goods exported vide ARE-I No.715 dated 30.06.2011 which are covered vide Excise Invoice No.71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 01.03.2006, with Serial Entry No. 62-C, where under, Medicaments of Heading, 3004 of the First Schedule to the said Tariff Act, are chargeable to total Central Excise Duty of 4.12% ad valorem and (2) Notification, 2/2008-C.E. dated 01.03,2008, with Serial Entry No. 21, where under, same Medicaments of the same Heading 3004 of the First Schedule to the said Tariff Act, are chargeable to total Central Excise Duty at the rate of 10.30% ad valorem. This means that at the disposal of the Appellants, they have two different Tariff Notifications, both being approved by the Indian Parliament, for the same Medicaments of the Heading, 3004 of the First Schedule to the said Tariff Act. By now it is settled question of Law that when the Learned Legislature has enacted two different Tariff Notifications, in respect of same finished excisable goods, it is upto the Central Excise Assessee, to choose one which is most beneficial to him for a given Consignment of the finished excisable good. 4.2 Grounds of RA.No.195/497/13-RA 4.2.1 The same number of 46 packages weighing 8154.324 kgs are mentioned in export and excise documents. Unfortunately, both the copies of ARE-I were endorsed w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1991 (55) ELT 437(SC) 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 13.03.2015 and 05.11.2015. Shri Hiren Soni, Asstt. Manager (W.H) and Shri Hemang Vaishnav, Asstt. Manager (IT) appeared for personal hearing on 13.03.2015 on behalf of applicant. None attended personal hearing on behalf of respondent department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the original authority has held that rebate is admissible only on duty payable @4% on FOB value as against @10%, as claimed by the applicant and that rebate claim is inadmissible on account of certain discrepancies. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned Orders-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed these Revision Applications on ground mentioned in para (4) above. 8. In respect of revision application pertaining to Order-in-Original No.639/1112/DC(Rebate)/Raigad dated 30.05.2012, Government observes that the main reason for rejection of rebate claims amongst others was that the container No. and Seal No. are not tallying attested copy of Bill of Lading was not furnished nor was the Bank Reali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
