9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UNDARAM, MEMBER (J) 1. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate authority has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,65,878.34 P being excess rebate paid to the appellants herein in terms of Notification 108/78 dated 28.4.1978. The appellants' sugar mill was provisionally granted an incentive rebate of Rs. 16,79,339.65 P in terms of the above no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty itself. Therefore, a demand-cum-show-cause notice was issued on 8.4.1980 to recover the excess amount. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 26.8.1992, confirmed the demand; the Collector (Appeals) upheld his order; hence this appeal by the assessee. We have heard Shri R.N. Chopra, learned Advocate and Shri A.M. Tilak, learned DR. The appellants do not dispute that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been approved by the Apex Court. 2. The contention of the appellants that the demand is barred by limitation is also not accepted, having regard to the fact that rebate was sanctioned provisionally with a specific provision for adjustment of rebate claim and there is nothing on record to show that the rebate claims have been finally decided and that any final order has been passed. A copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontending that the sanction was final, having taken advantage under the Trade notice and having given an undertaking to refund the excess amount. The Court held that the assessees were bound by their own undertaking and therefore, the demand was not barred by limitation since it was a case of provisional sanction. 3. The Trade notice is applicable in the case of the present assessees also and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
