TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under Chapter Heading 2713.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act availing exemption under Notification No. 75/84, dated 1-3-84 as amended. They could not submit re-warehousing certificate within stipulated period. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to them by Commissioner of Central Excise for contravention of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they failed to produce AR3As before the proper officer within the prescribed period. The case was adjudicated by Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 64/demand/95, dated 30-11-95 demanding duty on the quantities of R.C.O. removed for which re-warehousing certificate was not received. However, subsequently they received re-warehousing certificate in most of the cases and on receiving the re-wareh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the impugned order. The main arguments of the appellant is that once they have obtained the re-warehousing certificate their refund claims should have been decided under Rule 156B of the Central Excise Rules. 3. On behalf of the Revenue it was pleaded that the Order-in-Original No. 64/Demand/95, dated 30-11-95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara was after issuing proper show cause notice. He confirmed the demand under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. This was not an order passed under Rule 156B of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore, the original authority was bound by this order unless it is modified. The refund claim was filed in respect of those clearances for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clearances. We find that duty was paid by the appellant consequent to the Order-in-Original No. 64/Demand/95 passed by the Commissioner. Any refund can be granted to the appellant after this order is modified or set aside. The appellants have filed an appeal before the Tribunal against this order but same was dismissed as appellants could not obtained clearances from the COD. The direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) under his order dated 30-10-98 were only for examining the claim in terms of Rule 156B. The Assistant Commissioner examined the case in terms of that rule and observed that duty was not paid under Rule 156B(1) of Central Excise Rules, hence refund cannot be claimed under Rule 156B(2). Duty was paid consequent to the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
