TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-RA - 83/14-CX - Dated:- 14-3-2014 - D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s Vijay Chemical Industries, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai against the order-in-appeal No. BC/155/BEL/11 dated 28.11.11 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai-III. 2. Applicant has stated as under: 2.1 The applicant is a partnership firm engaged in manufacture of various excisable goods falling under chapter 32 of the schedule to C. Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The applicant has been functioning as an EOU in terms of the Letter of Permission issued by Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai. The applicant procures various materials without payment of duty against CT-3 certificates in terms of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 27 applications, should not be recovered with interest. The learned adjudicating authority did not agree to the contentions of the applicant and passed the impugned order confirming the demand and interest thereon. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the various grounds; claims that they are eligible for rebate claim as duty paid goods were exported. 4. Applicant has not filed copy of order-in-appeal No. No. BC/155/BEL/11 dated 28.11.11 against which this revision application is filed. Party was asked vide this office letter dated 22.4.13 and 6.9.13 to supply the copy of said ORDER-IN-APPEAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount in terms of the order dated 09/03/2012 of your kindself, the subsequent proceedings against the demand notice have become infructuous. 5.3 We therefore waive the personal hearing and request your kind self to dispose the application on the basis of material on record. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. In this case, applicant has-claimed that their earlier revision application No.195/707-733/10-RA-Cx was decided vide GOI Revision Order No.219-245/12-Cx dated 9.3.12, against them. In second round of proceeding initiated by issuing show cause notice for recovery of already sanctioned rebate claims, demand confirmed by orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
