9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the appellant was required to receive certificates of reware housing within 90 days as stipulated in Rule 156B (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, but they failed. Subsequently the two Show Cause Notices dated 20.10.1993 and 13.12.1993 were issued which were confirmed by order in original dated 30.11.1995 on the ground that the appellant failed to state anything about the facts of establishing procurement of the consignment in the hands of the proper consignee. The said order dated 20.10.1993, was challenged before the Hon'ble Tribunal but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there is no concurrence of the committee of disputes for pursuing this appeal. Thereafter, the appellant paid up the duty of Rs. 1,13,52,313/-, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dem/Commr-I/09 dated 11.11.2009, was issued seeking recovery of refund amount as if it was erroneously granted on the ground that the above order of the High Court of Gujarat was then challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP No. 18988 of 2009, which came to be decided by its order dated 02.08.2010, requiring the appellant to produce all the relevant AR3As showing the proof of receipt of goods by the consignees in terms of the Notification No. 75/84-CE read with Rule 156B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 2002. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the refund claim partially by allowing refund of Rs. 40,68,278/- and confirmed recovery of the balance amount of refund of Rs. 80,70,026/-, against the order of the adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides and perused the records. We find that the Adjudicating Authority rejected the part claim of Rs. 80,70,026/- by demanding the same and demand of refund of Rs. 40,68,278/- was allowed. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the main reason for demand of the refund is given below: "18. As regards remaining 129 AR3As involving duty demand of Rs. 71,25,459/-, I find that M/s. IOC Ltd. Has utterly failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 173N (6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of these AR3As and as such I hold that they are not entitled for any benefit with regard to 129 AR3As involving duty demand of Rs. 71,25,459/- on account of non-fulfillment of stipulated conditions as laid down in Notification as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
