TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent judgement in the case of Voltas Ltd. Vs. CCE [ 2006 (5) TMI 232 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] has held that Section 11 can be invoked only when the demand proposed to be adjusted have reached finality. As the dispute relating to rebate for the amount of ₹ 59,16,907/- has been subjudice before one appellate forum or the other and passing of the adjudication orders and appellate orders pursuant to protective show cause notices 12.01.2010 is ab-initio void in the eyes of law. Such adjudication and appellate orders are declared to be nonest under law. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to disburse the sanctioned rebate amount of ₹ 85,38,790/- with interest under Section 11 BB of the Act within a period of 30 days from the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, he allowed the Appellant to restore the amount in their Cenvat credit account, from where the payment of duty was made, observing that the Appellant was not liable to pay duty on the finished goods for export, as per notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004. 4. Being aggrieved, Revenue filed Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that allowing re-credit in this manner tantamount to refund. The Appellants had not requested for restoration of amount in their Cenvat credit account. Hence, the Order-in-Original is not legal to the extent allowing re-credit, and no refund can be granted under Section 11B without an application/request by the assessee. 5. This appellant had appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court had granted interim stay vide order dated 05/02/2013 and thereafter, the Stay was confirmed to remain operative during the pendency of the Writ Petition by subsequent order dated 22/03/2013, copies of orders filed in the course of hearing before the Tribunal. 10. Being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 15/16th May 2013, the Appellant preferred Revision application before the Revisional Authority in the Ministry of Finance, GOI. Period Sept 12 to Nov 12, Rebate claim 11. The Appellant, thereafter filed further rebate claims totalling ₹ 85,38,790/- relating to the subsequent period September 2012 to November 2012, five rebate claims. These claims were sanctioned vide OIO nos. 76-81, 82-86, 87-92, 93-96 and 99-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim, reliance is placed on the ruling of this Tribunal in PANACEA ALLOYS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND SERVICE TAX, PUNE-I (2018-TIOL-1305- CESTAT-MUM), where it was held that the rebate amount which is sanctioned to assessee cannot be appropriated by invoking the provisions of Section 11, more specifically when the dues are from a totally different entity. (ii) It is further urged that as the dispute regarding the rebate amount of ₹ 59,16,907/- is sub judice before Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition No. 989/2012 (filed on 28.01.2012) and there being Stay granted by the Hon ble High Court, the adjustment made by the Court below is ab initio void. The Appellant relies on the Board Circular No. 13/92-CX-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
