TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Notification No. 4/2009-C.E., dated 24-2-2009, the effective rate of Central Excise Duty was reduced from 10% to 8%. It has been observed that the manufacturer had cleared the exported goods vide ARE-1 No. 01, dated 24-2-2009 by paying the Central Excise duty @ 10% instead of 8% and rebate had been sanctioned as claimed. However, they were liable to pay Central Excise duty @ 8% only. Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) has sanctioned the rebate of duty as claimed which is not proper. The duty sanctioned on this account is Rs. 3,47,048/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) after considering all the submissions rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order-in-original. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant department has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 3.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) has agreed that "the law is settled that a Notification changing effective rate of duty takes effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette as held in Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj [2000 (116) E.L.T. 431....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e correctness of the rebate claim and that the duty has been correctly paid. 3.5 The provisions of para 3(b) of the Notification No. 19/2004 (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, clearly spelled out that if the proper officer (i.e. AC/DC of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory or Maritime Commissioner) is satisfied himself that the claim is in order then he shall sanction the rebate either in whole or part. This means that he is empowered to look into the correctness of the rebate claim. 3.6 From the above, it seems that the rebate sanctioning authority should examine and satisfy himself that the rebate claim is in order in all respect and if it is not in order, he can restrict the claim amount. 3.7 Further paragraph 8.4 of C.B.E. & C. Central Excise Manual reads as followed - "8.4 - After satisfying himself that the goods cleared for export under the relevant ARE-1, applications mentioned in the claim were actually exported, as evidence from the original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 duly certified by Customs, and that the goods are of 'duty paid' character as certified on the triplicate copy of ARE-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon para 4.1 of Part-I of Chapter 8 of C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual on Supplementary Instructions which is extracted as under :- "4. Sealing of goods and examination at place of dispatch. 4.1 The exporter is required to prepare five copies of application in the Form ARE-1, as per format specified in the Annexure-14 to Notification No. 19/2004-Central Excise (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 (See Part 7). The goods shall be assessed to duty in the same manner as the goods for home consumption. The classification and rate of duty should be in terms of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with any exemption notification and/or Central Excise Rules, 2002. The value shall be the "transaction value" and should conform to Section 4 or section 4A, as the case may be, of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is clarified that this value may be less than, equal to or more than the FOB value indicated by the exporter on the Shipping Bill." The plain reading of said para, reveals that the export goods shall be assessed to duty in the same manner as the goods cleared for home consumption are assessed. Further the classification and rate of duty should be as stated in Schedule of Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....either wait nor depend upon any other action of review process by any jurisdictional authority. Moreover, the provision of Notifn. No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 will prevail over the C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 3-2-2000. Further, the notification issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, prescribes the conditions, limitations and procedure to be followed for claiming as well as sanctioning rebate claims of duty paid on exported goods. The satisfaction of rebate sanctioning authority requires that rebate claim as per the relevant statutory provisions is to be in order. He does not have the mandate to sanction claim of obviously excess paid duty. Therefore, the circular of 2000 as relied upon by respondents cannot supersede the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. 8.3 In view of above position, Government holds that duty was required to be paid @ 8% on said goods on 24-2-2009, and rebate is admissible of duty paid @ 8% only under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notifn. No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Any plea of ignorance of law cannot be admitted as legal and proper. 8.4 Govt. however observes....