TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 29-7-2011 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-10-2011 was that all rebate claims filed by the respondent in the months of March April 2011 were found admissible and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner was bound to sanction the rebate claims of ₹ 6,83,727/- soon after having received the Order-in-Appeal. But he not only failed in complying the Order-in-Appeal but also aggravated the whole matter by issuing the deficiency memo for rejection of their rebate claims on the ground that the respondent had filed rebate claims after more than one year and thereby the rebate claims were hit by time limitation. The Assistant Commissioner did not have any legal basis for rejection of the respondent s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave any hesitation in saying that the Revision Application is frivolous and not maintainable - revision rejected. - F. No. 198/45/2014-R.A. - Order No. 611/2018-CX - Dated:- 3-12-2018 - Shri R.P. Sharma, Additional Secretary ORDER A Revision Application No. 198/45/2014 dated 3-6-2014 is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), against the Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/252/13-14, dated 23-12-2013, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Noida, whereby the appeal of the respondent M/s. Global Auto Tech Ltd., Noida, has been allowed and the OIO passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has been set aside. 2. The revision application has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebate claims of ₹ 6,83,727/- even after long time from having received the Order-in-Appeal in their favour, the respondent requested for sanction of the same vide their letter dated 15-4-2013 and 8-7-2013. But the Assistant Commissioner, instead of complying the Order-in-Appeal and sanctioning the rebate claims, issued a deficiency Memo to the respondent treating the above stated letters of respondent as fresh rebate applications and proposed rejection of the rebate claim of ₹ 6,83,727/- on the ground that the respondent had lodged rebate claims after more than one year from the receipt of Order-in-Appeal. In this regard reliance was placed on Explanation B (ec) in Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as per which where dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, the net effect of the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 29-7-2011 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-10-2011 was that all rebate claims filed by the respondent in the months of March April 2011 were found admissible and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner was bound to sanction the rebate claims of ₹ 6,83,727/- soon after having received the Order-in-Appeal. But he not only failed in complying the Order-in-Appeal but also aggravated the whole matter by issuing the deficiency memo for rejection of their rebate claims on the ground that the respondent had filed rebate claims after more than one year and thereby the rebate claims were hit by time limitation. To support his above conclusion a shelter of Explanation B (ec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequently by virtue of the order of the Court or any other appellate authority while settling dispute regarding classification of goods, valuation of the goods or rate of duty etc. for which the refund claim is filed by the claimant later on the basis of such Court s or appellate authority s order. But in the instant case the rebate of duty has not arisen due to any such situation and rebate of duties had been claimed on account of export of duty paid goods for which rebate claims had already been filed in time and the Commissioner (Appeals) had restored even the rejected claims. Hence, the respondent was not required to file the rebate claims for ₹ 6,83,627/- again after Commissioner (Appeals) had issued his order in 2011 and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
