Page 235 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : SOMSON EXPORTS 569

11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules,
2002 - Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
Application rejected
[Order]. - A revision Application No. 195/43/2018-RA, dated 6-2-2018
has been filed by the M/s. Somson Exports, Phagwara (hereinafter referred to as
the applicants) against the Order-in-Appeal No. JAL-Excus-001-App-110-17-18,
dated 7-11-2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana wherein the
applicant’s appeal has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant cleared finished goods for
export under claims of rebate by mentioning the description as “Pump Set 10
H.P. (I.C. Engine with Centrifugal Pump) [CETH 8413 70 10]” in their Central
Excise invoices and ARE-1s and accordingly paid Central Excise duty at the rate
of 8% up to 27-2-2010 and 10% thereafter.
3. The applicant did not mention the Central Excise Tariff Heading
(CETH) of the impugned goods on the documents. Thereafter the applicant filed
three rebate claims involving an amount of Rs. 6,95,259/- with Deputy Commis-
sioner, Central Excise Division, Phagwara. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned
and paid rebate of Rs. 6,62,930/- by way of cash and Rs. 32,329/- by way of
CENVAT Credit. A demand of Rs. 3,89,603/- was raised and confirmed vide Or-
der-in-Original No. 119/CE/ADC/LDH/2012, dated 15-3-2013 on account of
erroneous rebate resulting from excess duty paid on impugned export goods.
Penalty of Rs. 3,89,603/- was also imposed on the applicant under Section 11AC
of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) read with Rule 25 of Cen-
tral Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal before Commis-
sioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal rejected the appli-
cant’s appeal.
1 3. Personal hearing in this case was granted on 20-11-2019 which was
attended by Shri Amardeep Singh, Advocate on behalf of the applicant. He con-
tended that the main issue has been resolved. The issue which remains pending
for a decision is on account of imposition of penalty on the applicant since there
was no mens rea and the applicant were declaring the classification of the goods
on the ER-1 Returns filed with the respondent every month which specify both
domestic and export clearances. The fact regarding imposition of penalty was
raised before Commissioner (Appeals) also but no findings on this aspect have
been given. During the course of the personal hearing on 20-11-2019, the appli-
cant was directed to give a copy of memorandum of appeal filed before Commis-
sioner (Appeal) by the applicant.
Since no one appeared for the respondent and no request for adjourn-
ment has been received, the matter is being taken up for disposal on the basis of
evidence available on record.
4. It is observed that the applicant mentioned the description of im-
pugned export goods as “Pump Set 10 H.P. (I.C. Engine with Centrifugal
Pump)”. The said goods merit classification under CETH 8413 70 10 of Schedule
to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were liable to pay central excise duty at
the rate of 4%. The applicant has discharged higher rate of duty (8% and 10%)
________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
- EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  235