9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r P S Pruthi The issue in this case is of maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal in respect of impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting/reducing the rebate claim. 2. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 3. In terms of proviso (b) to Section 35 (1), no appeal shall lie to the appellate Tribunal in respect of any order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) if such o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only). Another order was passed by the Commissioner demanding credit of Rs. 64.69 lakhs for a different period. This order also went up to the Tribunal which granted stay with a condition to pre-deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs. The party had claimed rebate of the accumulated Cenvat Credit. Therefore, in view of the orders referred to above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that on issue of rebate, appeal is not maintainable before Tribunal in terms of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. 6. From the above facts we find that in the case of Venus International, the issue of recovery of rebate claim basically arose from the denial of Cenvat Credit which gave rise to the incorrect sanction of rebate claim. In the present case, we find that the rebate claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
