(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. The petitioners have challenged an order dated June 7, 2012, at annexure F, to the petition, passed by the revisional authority in the following factual background.
(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a company, registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacture of goods like tooth paste/powder, shaving cream, etc. During the period between the year 1997 -98 to October 2001, petitioner No. 1 exported various goods valued at Rs. 9.44 crores (rounded off) on which the petitioner -company had paid excise duty of Rs. 81.31 lakhs (rounded off). As per the scheme of the Government of India, the petitioner -company claimed rebate on such excise duty by raising claims with the Department from time to time. The exports were made by the petitioner -company through its merchant -exporters. It is not in dispute that from the merchant -exporters, the petitioner -company recovered a total price of Rs. 7.50 crores (rounded off) for such goods. The difference between the price realised by the petitioner -company and of the total value of exports made could be attributed to the merchant -exporter's commission/profit. On July 14, 2002, the respondents issued show -cause notice pointing out to the petitioner -company that though the price charged by the merchant -exporters to the overseas buyers of the goods exported was Rs. 9.44 crores, the petitioner -company had received only Rs. 7.50 crores from the merchant -exporters. On such amount, the petitioner had to pay excise duty of Rs. 64.53 lakhs against the higher duty of Rs. 81.31 crores paid by the petitioner -company which amount the petitioners claimed as rebate. The petitioner had thus, claimed higher rebate of Rs. 16.78 lakhs (rounded off) and recovered the same from the respondents. On such allegations, the show -cause notice proposed to recover the excess rebate of Rs. 16.78 lakhs.
(3.) THE adjudicating authority under its order dated March 29, 2004, ordered recovery of excess rebate of Rs. 16.78 lakhs and also imposed penalties on the company as well as its managing director.