2015 (4) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rh. 2.  Brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Rebate, Raigad partly rejecting the rebate claim to the extent of amounting to Rs. 1,43,134/- and Rs. 37,484/- on the ground that the values declared in the ARE-1s were more than the values declared in the shipping bills. The value declared in the ARE-1 was more, which was not the correct transaction value as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.  Therefore, the value after deducting freight and insurance  from the commercial value should be transaction value. In few cases the claimant has exported free samples having no commercial value against which Nil FOB value was shown in the shipping bill.  Hence, total duty amounting t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. Para 9.7 of the said order is reproduced below :- "9.7  ........... Any amount paid in excess of duty liability on one's own volition cannot be treated as duty. But it has to be treated simply a voluntary deposit  with the Government which is required to be returned to the respondent in the manner in which it was paid as the same amount cannot be retained by Government without any authority of law. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh vide order dated 11.09.2008 in CWP Nos. 2235 & 3358 of 2007, in the case of M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. UOI has decided as under :- "Rebate/Refund - Mode of payment-  Petitioner paid lesser duty on domestic product and higher duty on export product ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... value declared in shipping bills and the value declared in ARE-1 was not correct transaction value in terms of section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, that the correct transaction value was arrived at after deducting freight and insurance from commercial price (CIF), that the rebate claim was not admissible on free samples, The said orders-in-original were upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). 8.  In the instant revision applications, the applicant has not contested the findings of lower authority to the extent of denial of rebate claim.  The said contention was further reiterated by applicant in their letter dated 12.09.2013.  However, they have requested to allow re-credit of said amount in their Cenvat credit.  In this....