TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is engaged in manufacture of goods like Tooth Paste/Powder, Shaving Cream etc. During the period between the Year-1997-98 to October- 2001, the petitioner no.1 exported various goods valued at ₹ 9.44 Crores (Rounded Off) on which the petitioner-company had paid excise duty of ₹ 81.31 Lac (Rounded Off). As per the scheme of the Government of India, the petitioner-company claimed rebate on such excise duty by raising claims with the department from time to time. The exports were made by the petitioner-company through its merchant exporters. It is not in dispute that from the merchant exporters, the petitioner company recovered a total price of ₹ 7.50 Crores (Rounded Off) for such goods. The difference between the price real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector s appeal against the penalty was allowed. Hence, this petition. 3. Before us, learned counsel for the both the sides raised detailed contentions. 4. However, in view of certain peculiar facts of the case, we do not propose to deal with such contentions at a greater length. 5. Briefly, the case of the petitioner company is that in actual terms, the exports were made worth ₹ 9.44 Crores and ₹ 81.31 Lac excise duty was actually paid on such valuation. The fact that portion of the total export value of ₹ 9.44 Crores comprised of profit/commission or the merchant exporter would not change the position. The rebate claim of the petitioners, therefore, had to be calculated on the basis of such valuation. Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit. The petitioners had to pay excise duty only on the value of goods realized by it i.e. ₹ 7.50 Crores and could have claimed rebate of such excise duty and no more. He submitted that the details of the goods being sold by the petitioners to the merchant exporters and the value being realized by the petitioners were not available to the Department at the time of processing excess rebate claims, and therefore, larger period of limitation should be applied. 7. Counsel however, was not in a position to demolish the contention of the petitioners that in any case in the worst possible scenario, even if the rebate of ₹ 16.70 Lacs is to be reversed, matching cenvat credit must be allowed to be claimed to the petitioners. 8. So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce that the petitioners did pay the total excise duty of ₹ 81.31 Lacs, which is not in dispute at all. It is this duty which the petitioners claimed by way of rebate. Therefore, even if the case of the Department was that the petitioners had to pay excise duty only of ₹ 64.53 Lacs on the petitioners export valuation of ₹ 7.50 Crores, essentially what the petitioners achieved in the process was to pay higher excise duty to ₹ 16.78 Crores and received rebate thereof from the Department. If as suggested by the Department, that petitioners had not paid excess duty of ₹ 16.53 Lacs and received rebate thereof, resultant effect would be of cenvat credit of ₹ 16.78 Lacs being retained in the petitioners account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
