TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and the same were sanctioned during the period from 15.11.2007 to 18.0712008. Subsequently, because of contractual obligation the applicant received additional amounts due to cost variance from their importers i.e. M/S. RHI AG Vienna and their other affiliated group companies, on which the applicant paid the differential duty with interest. Subsequent to payment of differential duty, the applicant filed two rebate claims before Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for Rs. 4,36,053/- and for Rs. 24,04,012/- 2.1 Rebate claim for Rs. 4, 36,053/ was sanctioned by Order-in-Original No. 14/2009 (R)/BP/VSP-5/CEX dated 23.042009. On review of the above Order-in Original. by the competent authority, the Department being aggrieved by the impugned order filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was dismissed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 11/2009 (V-II) D CE dated 30.10.2009 basing on the decision in the case of M/S. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirunelveli [(2009 (236) EL.T 143 (Tri-Chennai)], was where in rebate based on the supplementary invoices raised on foreign buyers was allowed. A Revision Application was filed before the Joint Secretary (RA) agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2011 (F. N0198/159/09- RA-CX) in the case of CCE Hyderabad vs. M/S. Piramal Health Care Ltd is not applicable in the present case. The adjudicating authority further held that the decision of the Joint Secretary (RA) under section 35EE Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be appealed against and is final, therefore the contention of the appellants that their issue is covered under explanation B (2) (f) under section 11B and that their claim is within the time does not hold water and is liable for rejection. The adjudicating authority following the observations of the Hon'ble Joint Secretary decided the issue by holding that the sanction of rebate of Rs. 4,36,053/ is in order, in respect of the other claim for Rs. 24, 04,012/- only the rebate of is in order and rejected the amount of Rs. 5,33,932/- as the supplementary rebate claim in respect of this amount are not filed within one year from the relevant date that is one year from the date of export: under explanation (B) (a) (i) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also demanded the same amount under section IIA of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under section 11B ibid. 3 Being aggrieved by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rame was prescribed as under the section 11 B. Hence no time limit is prescribed for claiming rebate under the Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules in the case of export after the issuance of the Notification 19/2004. This view is confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court at*Madras in the case of Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 2012(281) ELT 227 (Mad)] who have detailly analyzed and compared two notifications. 4.3 The G.O.I. Order No. 455-56/2011 encompasses on two issues: First one is being which of the clauses viz. (a) (i) or clause (f) or clause (eb) and (f) both, to explanation to section 11B (5) is applicable and the second one is whether in case of 100% EOU export rebate is allowable. For the first one in the G.O.I order dated 5.5.2011, it has been held that the decision of the Sterlilte Industries case is not applicable as the case dealt with an issue when supplementary rebate claim was made before the sanction of original claim. It was held that clause (a) (i) is applicable without Government of India into the fact that assessments were provisional. But nowhere in Sterlite order there is any mention that the supplementary rebate is claimed prior to the sanction of original cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....VS (RA), that for extra amount paid by the assesse subsequently to arrive at FOB value should be refunded or credited to the Cenvat credit. 4.7 The fact of 100% EOU or DTA unit exporting the goods on payment of duty is immaterial and so also section 5A (IA) of the Act. The issue has not been disputed by the Assistant Commissioner in his Order in Original and the assessment has been done by department for the payment of duty including realization of supplementary duty. If the amount is paid by the exporter is to be paid as voluntary deposit with the department, the same is to be returned to the exporter by way of re-credit in Cenvat credit account. We rely in the case of Praj Industries Ltd [ 2012 (278) ELT 421 (G.O.I) P.R.S. Pharmacel Pvt. Ltd (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) [2006 (202) ELT 153 (G.O.!.)] and Indira Gandhi Mahila Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. [ 2012 (278) ELT (G.O.!.) pronounced by the J.S.(R.A). 5. Personal hearing was held in this case on 0607.2015. Shri S.C. Choudhary attended hearing on behalf of applicant who reiterated grounds of Revision Application. Shri Narendra Kumar Yadav, Deputy Commissioner appeal for hearing on behalf of the respondent department. 6. G....