TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, under Rule 18 read with Notification No. 19/04-CE (NT) dated 6.9.2004. Appellant paid central excise duty on CIF value (inclusive of freight and insurance) for certain exports. On intimation from the rebate sanctioning authority, that rebate claim should be restricted to FOB value, appellant voluntarily corrected the amount of rebate claim to the extent of FOB value. Jurisdictional Superintendent issued duty paying certificate only to the extent of FOB value (arrived at by deducting amount of duty paid on freight and insurance). Appellant took suo motu credit of excess paid duty amount of Rs. 3,92,594/- in their Cenvat Credit account under intimation to Revenue. Jurisdictional Superintendent issued letter to appellant requesting for cop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f excess duty paid on exports. 4. The dispute in this appeal is whether the appellant have rightly taken the re-credit of excess duty debited on CIF value, for export. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant urges that normally appellant is entitled to clear goods for export without payment of duty. Alternatively, the appellant is entitled to clear goods on payment of duty and claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE. Thus, payment of duty on clearance of goods for export entitled an assessee for grant of rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods. The policy of the Government is not to export taxes so that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n understanding that they were not required to reverse the credit, and in absence of show cause notice, they took re-credit of the said amount under intimation to the Department. This Tribunal held that under the facts and circumstances, there is no impediment in taking re-credit under intimation to the Department. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of ICMC Corporation Limited vs. CESTAT, Chennai -2014 (302) ELT 45 (Mad.) wherein under the fact that ICMC had taken cenvat credit of common input services at Rs. 5,38,796/-. On demand by Revenue for reversal of prescribed percentage under Rule 6(3) at Rs. 1.30 crore, the appellant reversed the amount of Rs. 5,38,796/-. Subsequently, ICMC took credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices, which are given under Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. When that being the case, in respect of those services specifically mentioned under Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as it existed during the relevant period viz., 2004-2006 getting the reversal of the entry is in tune with its stand taken, which was accepted by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. 14. We do not find any good ground to hold that it was a case of refund of duly falling under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the assessee was to comply with the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. The view of the Tribunal that the assessee should seek reversal in the appropriate judicial forum, if the assessee was aggrieved by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the learned Counsel that re-credit taken is by way of correction of accounting entries for excess duty debited. Further, there is no case of any rejection of rebate claim, as the appellant have themselves corrected the amount of rebate claim, based on the FOB value. Thus, there was no occasion to file any appeal against the rebate sanctioning order. Further, under the facts and circumstances, the penal provisions are not attracted. It is further prayed by the learned Counsel, to allow the appeal allowing the re-credit of excess amount and further in terms of Section 142(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the said amount may be ordered to be disbursed in cash. Further, attention is drawn to para 6 of the rebate sanctioning ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of cenvatable invoices which was objected to by the Department in audit and credit of which Rs. 2,92,401/- was disallowed on LDO/furnace oil. The said amount was debited from RG-23A. Subsequently, assessee noticed that under the Cenvat Credit Rules, they can claim credit on furnace oil and accordingly intimated the Assistant Commissioner of their wrong debit of Rs. 2,63,446/-. Further, informing that they are taking the re-credit of the same by reversal entry. The question before the Hon'ble High Court was whether the appellant-assessee was entitled to take re-credit which was earlier reversed by it. The High court found that the show cause notice was wrongly issued on a wrong premise that no permission was taken, or that original d....