TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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. - F.No.198/179-186/12-RA - ORDER NO. 02-09/2016-CX - Dated:- 11-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on date, they do not have any stock of mother liquor or any type of menthol waste lying in their factory as all the quantity of mother liquor generated during the course of manufacture of menthol since 2008 has been further reprocessed/recycled within their factory to obtain menthol. 2.5. The 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. Subsequently, the respondent had themselves voluntarily agreed to vide their letter dated 17.02.2011 that rebate be sanctioned as per the norms 1 kg de-terpinated mentha Oil to 1 kg menthol and accordingly the norms were re-fixed as 1.000kg of de-terpinated mentha oil to Ikg menthol and 1.000 kg of de-terpinated mentha oil to 1 kg of menthol crystals vide letter C.No. V(Misc) Rebate/Notif.21/04/DB/2/2009/1121 dated 04.03.2011. 3. Accordingly, department filed appeals against the Order-in-Original ibid with Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opting fraudulent practices by the respondent to get excess monetary benefit and secondly, re-fixation of input output norms. 5.Personal hearing scheduled 'in this case on 10.0812015. The department applicant made a reply dated 12.09.2012 reiterating the grounds of revision appeal. Shri K. Gurumurthy, Advocate attended the hearing on behalf of the respondent, who stated that the fact of export and duty payment is not disputed. That the Commissioner (Appeals) order is detailed and reasonable and may be upheld. Also the submissions dated 27.06.2012 may be considered wherein following had been submitted: 5.1. That the Revision Application have been filed by the department under a mistake of facts because the department itself has granted permission under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and has fixed input output norms for the final product namely Menthol as well as Menthol Crystals. 5.2. That the present case was constructed on the issue that the permission order dated 1%08.2009 did not cover menthol crystals for the input stage rebate. That neither in the Show Cause Notice nor in the Order-in-Original nor in Order-in-Appeal there was any dispute with reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which was subsequently found to be incorrect The rebate claims thus sanctioned by the original authority were appealed against by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the department's appeal. Now the department has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para 4 above 8.Government further observes that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the ground taken by Revenue that mother liquor was used in the factory to obtain menthol as per statements of Shri Ram Ashish Yadav, Deputy Manager (Production) and Shri Vinod Rana, Deputy Manager (Commercial) is not corroborated by the evidences available on record and even the copies of the statement of the concerned persons have not been furnished by the Revenue. On the other hand it has been projected by the respondents with the help of documentary evidences that mother liquor is used for making de mentholised oil and sold under different names. Moreover, Revenue has not filed any appeal against fixation of norms dated 19.082009. Based on these observations appeals filed by Revenue were rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). 9.The Government observes that Shri Ram Ashish Yadav, Deputy Manag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 12.Government therefore, finds that 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. 13.In view of above, Government sets aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remands back the case to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
