TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebate claim - the appellant had failed to establish that the amount appropriated is not due to the Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/34/2011-SM - A/13531/2017 - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant: Mr. S. Vyas (Advocate) For Respondent: MRs.NitinaNagori (A.R.) ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both the sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against order-in-appeal No.Commr.(A)/273/VDR-II/2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs (Vadodara). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to a classification dispute, the assessment was made provisional for the period November 1991 to February 1993. While directing the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with she submits that there is no irregularity in appropriation of the amount. He submits that there is no need to issue a demand notice on finalization of assessment as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Serai Kella Glass works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Patna - 1997 (91) ELT 497 (SC). The Commissioner in his Order dt.17.12.1997 dropped the proceeding initiated by issuing the demand notice for recovery of the differential duty as infructuous holding the provisional assessment became final and the recovery process is initiated. 5. The short issue involved in the present case to be determined is whether appropriation of ₹ 11,03,247/- by the Revenue against the sanctioned rebate is correct or otherwise. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants filed the rebate claims and the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 27.03.2009, sanctioned the rebate claims of ₹ 47,54,070/- but appropriated the said sanctioned rebate amounts against the outstanding of ₹ 11,03,247/-. The Appellants have contested the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority appropriating the amount sanctioned as rebate towards the outstanding dues. 6. I do not find any discrepancy in the said findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as the appellant had failed to establish that the amount appropriated is not due to the Revenue. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court) - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
