TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12,794/- and ₹ 64,66,041/- does not arise and issue of such demand is in utter disregard of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court. As demands were issued for recovery of allegedly erroneously sanctioned rebate, the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore set aside the same since the Delhi High Court set aside the consequential demands also and held that the issue of such demand is arbitrary and illegal. Even otherwise, if consequential recovery is permitted, on any ground, it amounts to reviewing the order of Delhi High Court. When the order of Delhi High Court attained finality, this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act, has no option except to confirm the order under challenge. On a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Hyderabad L Division, Hyderabad for ₹ 21,18,36,117/- in respect of exports of OLANZAPINE Tablets USP 20mg (in 30s pack/100s pack/500s pack) made under DEPB scheme and for ₹ 1,75,57,537/- on export of P or P Medicaments. The said claims were received in the Divisional Office on 18.07.2011 and 21.11.2011 respectively. The goods manufactured by the assessee were cleared for export to M/s Dr.Reddy s Laboratories Inc, 200, Somerset Corporate BLVD, Floor 7, Birdgewater, New Jersey, USA, their subsidiary unit for a value of ₹ 411,33,22,668/- and ₹ 34,09,23,058/- on payment of duty of ₹ 21,18,36,117/- and ₹ 1,75,57,537/-. 3. During enquiry M/s. Dr. Reddy s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e local market. 4. Based on the above information, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad L Division, Hyderabad considered the rebate claims filed by M/s. Dr. Reddy s Laboratories Ltd., as eligible by accepting the assessable value adopted by M/s Dr.Reddy s Laboratories Ltd., and accordingly sanctioned an amount of ₹ 21,11,04,089/- in cash and ₹ 1,75,48,551/- in cash and ₹ 8,986/- as credit to their CENVAT credit account in full and final settlement of the rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly, cheques bearing No.642704 dated 30.09.2011 for ₹ 21,11,04,089/- and 642763 dated 13.01.2012 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IV) (D) CE dated 28.08.2012. The Joint Secretary (Revision Application) while passing an order dated 19.12.2013 in Revision Application Nos.195/594 1700/12-RA opined that the appellate authority while allowing the appeals filed by the department observed that the original authority should have enquired the market price of impugned goods as the market price of similar/identical products is less than the rebate claim. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not determine the transaction value of the impugned goods. The transaction value of the impugned goods was decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad IV vide Order-in-Original No.53/12 dated 30.10.2012 and vide the said order, the rebate claims of ₹ 8,91,295/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench, Bangalore is challenged on the ground of determination of rebate with reference to Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 13. During the course of hearing at the stage of admission, Sri Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the order of rebate passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad L Division, Hyderabad is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside and drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in Dr. Reddy s Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India 2014 (309) ELT 423 (Del.) , 14. The CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore passed order based on the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2012 REBATE dated 13.01.2012. 17. The impugned recovery order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad IV confirming the recovery of erroneously sanctioned rebate was only a consequential order of recovery based on the orders which were challenged before the Delhi High Court. When the Delhi High Court set aside the consequential demands raised for recovery of the rebate of excise duty, the question of again issuing demand for recovery of ₹ 21,02,12,794/- and ₹ 64,66,041/- does not arise and issue of such demand is in utter disregard of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court. 18. As demands were issued for recovery of allegedly erroneously sanctioned rebate, the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
