2013 (7) TMI 185 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Government upholds lower authorities' decisions, limits rebate to 4% duty rate, denies revision applications.

IN RE : CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.

IN RE : CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 133 (G.O.I.) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility to claim rebate of duty paid at a higher rate under Notification No. 2/2008-C.E.2. Rebate on free samples with no foreign remittance.3. Determination of transaction value for rebate purposes.4. Applicability of two different notifications for the same goods.5. Mode of refund for excess duty paid.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility to Claim Rebate of Duty Paid at a Higher Rate:The applicant contended that they were eligible to claim a rebate of duty paid at 10% under Notification No. 2/2008-C.E. instead of the effective rate of 4% under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. The government noted that the applicant had been clearing goods for home consumption at 4% but opted to pay 10% on export goods post-Budget 2010 to encash accumulated Cenvat credit. The government concluded that duty was payable at 4% on export goods as well, and rebate cannot be granted on the excess duty paid, citing C.B.E. & C. Instructions that export goods must be assessed in the same manner as goods for home consumption.2. Rebate on Free Samples with No Foreign Remittance:The applicant argued that rebate on free samples should not be denied. The government upheld the lower authorities' decision that since no foreign remittance was received for free samples, rebate was rightly denied under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). However, the amount paid as duty on free samples was allowed to be re-credited to the Cenvat credit account.3. Determination of Transaction Value for Rebate Purposes:The applicant contested the decision of lower authorities regarding the determination of transaction value based on the lower FOB value declared in the Shipping Bill. The government observed that the place of removal is within the geographical limits of India, and the transaction value should be determined as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority rightly considered the FOB value as the transaction value and sanctioned rebate accordingly, allowing re-credit of any excess duty paid.4. Applicability of Two Different Notifications for the Same Goods:The applicant contended that they could choose the notification beneficial to them. The government clarified that Notification No. 2/2008-C.E. prescribed the General Tariff rate, while Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. prescribed the effective rate. Both notifications must be read together, and the effective rate of 4% should be applied. The government emphasized that the applicant could not avail benefits from both notifications simultaneously and must choose one notification for all clearances.5. Mode of Refund for Excess Duty Paid:The applicant argued that the rebate should be given as a cheque rather than re-crediting the Cenvat credit account. The government upheld the lower authorities' decision to re-credit the excess duty paid in the Cenvat credit account, citing that the excess paid amount cannot be retained by the government without any authority of law. The government referenced the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana's decision in M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI, which supported refund by way of credit for the excess duty paid.Conclusion:The government found no merit in the contentions of the applicant and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities. The revision applications were rejected, and the orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal were affirmed. The rebate was restricted to the duty paid at the effective rate of 4%, and any excess amount paid was to be re-credited to the Cenvat credit account.