TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002-CE as, amended, for fixation of special rate of refund of duty. The appellants made an application dated 29.09.2009 to the Commissioner, Central Excise for fixing the value addition at the rate of 62.65% (if the sale value is considered at MRP) or 58.60% (if the actual sale value is considered). Vide Letter dated 28.04.2010, Commissioner questioned the correctness of the claim and intimated that the actual value addition would be at 45.73%. The appellants vide letter dated 11.05.2010 clarified the questions raised and submitted that the percentage of the value addition would be 60.38%. A personal hearing was fixed on 11.05.2010. Learned Commissioner passed the impugned order, dated 21.05.2010 and communicated on 29.07.2010, rejected th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as held in Crane Betel Nut Powder Works 2011 (274) ELT 113 (Tri.); 2012 (279) ELT 487 (AP); 2014 (305) ELT A109 (SC). * Statutory Auditor/ C.A Certificate is valid for arriving at the value addition as held in Transformers & Electricals- 2005 (188) ELT 60 (Tri.) and R.C.C. (Sales)- 2008 (223) ELT 53 (T). * Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Herbo Foundation- 2010 (261) ELT 98 held that amendment restricting the eligible refund to the appellants would lead to promissory estoppel. Division Bench has also affirmed this decision. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SAL Steel-2010 (260) ELT 185 (Guj.); Hon'ble Sikkim High Court in the case of Unicorn Industries- 2013 (289) ELT 117 (Sikkim); Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g a personal hearing on 11.05.2010, learned Commissioner has proceeded to adjudicate the case. Whereas in the letter dated 20.04.2010, Commissioner arrived at a value addition of 45.73%, while passing the final order, he rejected the claim completely. Commissioner has given the following findings: * In terms of Para 2.1 (l) of the Notification, it is the obligation of the manufacturer to stake their claim along with necessary documents and certificates and the appellants have failed to do so; burden to prove the claim is squarely on the appellants. * The word "Sale" is not defined under notification and therefore, the definition requires to be taken from Section 2 of Central Excise Act; the appellants claim of two value additions cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nventory values and adding freight inward to the cost of raw materials was incorrect. However, learned Commissioner has not discussed any of the above calculations in the impugned order and therefore, we do not find that there is any reason for us to go into the same in detail more so, when a Statutory Auditor's certificate is on record. 7. On-going through the records, we find that the learned commissioner, vide letter dated 20.04.2010, which is a show cause notice for the purposes of the impugned case, proposes to fix the value addition at the rate of 45.73% and vide final order totally rejects the claim of the appellant. Thus, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has gone beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. In case the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants before rejecting the same. Therefore, we find that Commissioner had no justified reasons to reject the Statutory Auditor's certificate. For this reason, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has completely ignored the provisions of the notification and therefore, such an order is liable to set aside. 8. We find that Explanation under Para 4 of the Notification reads as under: "For the purpose of this paragraph, the actual value addition in respect of said goods shall be calculated on the basis of the financial records of the preceding financial year, taking into account the following: (i) Sale value of the said goods excluding excise duty, Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, if any, paid on the goods; (ii) Less: Cost....