Page 206 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

740 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

export goods on payment of duty, no rebate is admissible under Rule 18 of Cen-
tral Excise Rules, 2002 consequentially.
9. CESTAT order in the case of M/s. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CCE
[2013 (296) E.L.T. 411 (Tri. - Mum.)] has been quoted by the applicant. This
judgment of CESTAT pertains to Notification No. 94/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004
and does not apply to the facts of present case. Moreover the said judgment is
subjudice in the Apex Court wherein Civil Appeal No. 3343 of 2014 [2015 (316)
E.L.T. A157 (S.C.)] has been filed.
10. The applicant has paid an amount as central excise duty on the ex-
port goods from their Cenvat account. The said amount does not assume the
character of duty as defined under Rule 2(e) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 where-
in ‘duty’ means “the duty payable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act”.
11. C.B.I. & C. vide Circular No. 203/37/96-CX., dated 26-4-96 has stat-
ed that AR-4 (now ARE-1) value of excisable goods should be determined under
Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Any amount paid in excess of duty liability
on one’s own volition cannot be treated as duty. It has to be treated simply a vol-
untary deposit with the Government which is required to be returned to the ap-
plicant in the manner, in which it was paid, as the said amount cannot be re-
tained by Government without any authority of law.
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Nahar Industries
Enterprises Limited v. Union of India [2009 (235) E.L.T. 22 (P & H)] has held that
“Assessee is not entitled to refund thereof in cash regardless of mode of payment of said
higher excise duty.”
12. Government holds that the applicant is not entitled for rebate under
Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the impugned goods exported under
Advance License Scheme in terms of Notification 42/2001-Central Excise (N.T.),
44/2001-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 26-6-2001 read with Notification 96/2009-Cus.,
dated 11-9-2009. Accordingly the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and
revision applications filed by the applicant are rejected.
_______
2020 (372) E.L.T. 740 (G.O.I.)

BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
[Department of Revenue - Revisionary Authority]
Ms. Mallika Arya, Additional Secretary
IN RE : DCS INTERNATIONAL TRADING PVT. LTD.
Order No. 44/2019, dated 11-11-2019 in F. No. 380/37/DBK/2017-RA
Human hair - Dressed human hair, Classification of - Test from CSFL
laboratory confirming that human hair, ‘worked’ and hence rightly classifiable
under RITC 6703 - Assessee exporting identical goods since 2011 bearing same
description and no evidence brought forth to establish any change in descrip-
tion warranting change in classification of impugned goods - Human hair ex-
ported rightly classifiable under RITC 6703 and not under RITC 05010010 -
Commissioner (Appeals) order set aside. [para 5]

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  206