9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtile products. The petitioner has manufacturing unit at Surat. Such goods are exported from JNPT, NhavaSheva, Raigad. As per Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the petitioner is entitled to rebate on the excise duty paid on such goods. The petitioner filed, in all, 18 rebate claims during the period of October 2010 to November 2011 claiming rebate of a total sum of Rs. 29,06,416/. The competent authority passed separate orders granting substantial portion of the rebate claims, however, restricting the rebates to a small component of the excise duty paid by the petitioner. 3. For record, we may refer to one such order dated 5.1.2012. The competent authority accepted the petitioner's claim for rebate barring a small component of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nction of rebate on FOB value, they have requested for recredit of the duty of balance portion in their Cenvat account register which is out of the jurisdiction of Maritime Commissioner." 4. After failing in appeals, the petitioner filed revision petitions before the Government of India. By the impugned order, Government of India dismissed the revision petitions. The authority was of the opinion that excise is to be paid only on FOB value of goods and not CIF value. Higher amount paid by the petitioner on CIF value did not partake the character of excise duty. Rebate can be granted only on the duty of excise and not on any other amount paid by the exporter. In fact, it was observed that such excess amount is in nature of voluntary deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 3.2.2000 in this respect. Counsel further submitted that in any case, the view of the Government of India was that the duty was erroneously paid. Such amount should therefore, be refunded. The petitioner's request for recredit of the amount in Cenvat account should have been accepted. He drew our attention to an order of the Government of India in case of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. reported in 2011(271) E.L.T. 148 (G.O.I.), in which it was provided that recredit should be made suo motu even without requirement of the assessee filing an application for such purpose. 7. In context of territorial jurisdiction, it is undisputed that the manufacturing unit of the petitioner is situated at Surat. The duty of excise was paid at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot withhold without the authority of law. If these facts are established, a simple corollary thereof would be that the the amount has to be returned to the petitioner. If therefore, the petitioner's request was for re- credit of such amount in Cenvat account, same was perfectly legitimate. The Government of India should not have asked the petitioner to file separate applications for such purpose. The Government of India itself in case of Balkrishna Industries Ltd.(supra), had under substantially similar circumstances, provided as under : "8. In this regards, Government observes that the revisionary authority has passed a number of orders wherein it has been held that the rebate of duty is to be allowed of the duty paid on the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
