TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defraud the revenue, fact remains that the petitioner has paid back and compensated the revenue by paying the amount to the credit of the Central Government together with interest on 02.02.2009 - The exports are not be burdened with tax liability. The petitioner was not entitled for rebate, the alternative benefit of export under bond without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be denied to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner has squared up the liability and exported the goods and also has received exports proceeds, the impugned orders rejecting the rebate claims cannot be sustained. Penalty for the wrongdoing was the subject matter of the order of the Settlement Commission dated 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner s appeal against Order-in-Original No.42 of 2009 dated 31.08.2009. 3. By these orders, the respondents have rejected partially rebate claim to an extent of ₹ 87,69,879/- by allowing rebate claim for a sum of ₹ 36,16,398/- out of total to be claimed for a sum of ₹ 1,23,86,277/-. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Facts are not in dispute. During the period between July 2008 to January 2009, the petitioner had made fraudulent credit of ₹ 86,73,376/- in its CENVAT account and thereby debited the aforesaid sum as excise duty on the goods exported during the aforesaid period and thereafter filed seven rebate claims for a total sum of ₹ 1,23,86,277/- when indeed the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 28,19,011 23 ARE-I in the month of Nov,08 6 10.07.2009 18,02,457 28 ARE-I in the month of Aug,08 Dec, 08 7 20.07.2009 9,82,267 18 ARE-I in the month of Jan,09 1,23,86,277 7. Under these circumstances, a Show Cause Notice No.28 of 2009 dated 03.08.2009 was issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent/Commissioner of Central Excise. The said Show Cause Notice was issued to show cause as to why a sum of ₹ 86,75,640/-as detailed in Annexure-I should not be demanded under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out payment of corresponding duty as there was no CENVAT credit for a sum of ₹ 86,75,640/- and wrong availing of credit of ₹ 12,07,057/-. 12. The further appeal before the third respondent/Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was also dismissed vide Order-in-Appeal No.108-114/2011(P) and in this background, the petitioner approached the first respondent/Joint Secretary under section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which culminated in the impugned order dated 29.01.2013 bearing reference Order No. 83-89/2013-CX. 13. It is noticed that the first respondent/Joint Secretary has allowed claim for a sum of ₹ 36,16,398/- from the total rebate claim of ₹ 1,23,86,277/- covered by seven different rebate claims f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. Even if the petitioner was not entitled to rebate, the petitioner would have been entitled to exclude such goods under bond under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The issue is Revenue Neutral. Though, the conduct of the petitioner was no forthright and was intended to defraud the revenue, fact remains that the petitioner has paid back and compensated the revenue by paying the amount to the credit of the Central Government together with interest on 02.02.2009. 19. The exports are not be burdened with tax liability. The petitioner was not entitled for rebate, the alternative benefit of export under bond without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be denied to the petitioner. 20. Consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
