TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. OF C. EX., PONDY [2010 (4) TMI 638 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that as initial claim was within time and was allowed, supplementary claim could not be said to be time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos.E/486/2008 & E/487/2008 - FINAL ORDER No.43126-43127/2017 - Dated:- 1-11-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m CIF and restricted their rebate claim. Subsequently, appellant filed claims for refund of duty with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise for the amount of ₹ 4,81,184 on 9.10.2006 and another claim of ₹ 29,11,166/- on 11.8.2006. Show cause notices were issued inter alia proposing to reject the refund claim to the tune of ₹ 10,05,986/- on the ground of time bar and ₹ 4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter deducting exact freight and insurance from the total CIF value, was in fact contrary to Circular No.510/06/2000-CX dt. 03.02.2000. yet, the appellant accepted such redetermination and only wanted re-credit of the difference between the claim and the sanctioned amount, in their Cenvat account. (iii) This claim of recredit of the said amount cannot be treated as a fresh refund claim in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for ready reference :- 3. I find that as per the practice prevailing, the appellants were being sanctioned about 98% rebate of the duty paid on the export goods in cash and the balance amount was to be taken as credit in the Cenvat account. In the present case, on a claim by the appellants, only a part of the rebate was given by cash and no credit was given of the balance amount. This has pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
