Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2016 (7) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 228 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRecovery of Rebate/ refund granted earlier - input stage rebate under Rule 18 had been granted to the respondent based on input output declaration which was subsequently found to be incorrect - respondent had mis-declared that the waste obtained would not be reprocessed/recycled further to obtain menthol which led to wrong fixation of the input output norm 1.250 kg DMO 1.000 kg menthol by the Division Office which effect was required to be fixed as 1:1 as the respondent was recycling/reprocessing the mother liquor and other wastes to obtain further menthol. Held that:- the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that revenue has also not appealed against the fixation of norms dated 19.08.2009. He has overlooked the fact that the respondent suppressed the fact of recycling/reprocessing of the mother liquor and other wastes to obtain further menthol from the department since 2008 and mis-declared which led to wrong fixation of the input output norm which were subsequently correctly re-fixed as 1:1 to which the respondent had agreed vide letter dated 17.02.2011. Thereafter, the rebate sanctioned on the basis of the earlier fixation of norms has been appealed against. Thus the order of appellate authority is not proper as it did not take into consideration the mis-representation of facts by the respondent to avail excess monetary benefit and subsequent re-fixing of input output norms. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal without taking into consideration the admission statement of Shri Ram Ashish Yadav, Deputy Manager (Production) who was in charge of production of the unit and Shri Vinod Rana, Deputy Manager (Commercial) under whose supervision record of production and clearance was maintained, dated 09.02.2011 recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as these were not placed before him. He has also ignored the fact that the respondent vide letter dated 17.02.2011 had voluntarily agreed to re-fixing of norms. Matter remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration - Decided in favor of revenue.
|