9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... har, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri A.P. Kumtakar, Consultant, for the Respondents. [Order : per K.L. Rehki, Member (T)] .-The facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondents were found entitled for the exemption from duty in terms of notification No. 146/74-Central Excises, dated 12-10-1974 (commonly known as incentive rebate for higher production of sugar during the period from D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in the nature of an exemption or concession from duty and that logically it could not be invoked where no duty was payable at all, such as, in the case of exports without payment of duty. However, we also find that in this case the department has not acted within the time frame permitted by the Central Excise Rule. Exports are not something which remain hidden from the department s notice. Cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced by the respondents during 1974-75. The export quantity, for which the demand has been issued, was cleared during the period from December, 1975 to January, 1976. Rebate for excess produced sugar was paid to the respondents 7-8 months later, in August, 1976, by which time the fact of export was well within the knowledge of the department. In the circumstances, if the department yet paid rebate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as provisional because the full facts of the export were within the department s knowledge when it determined and paid the said rebate. The Collector has come to us with a statutory appeal. This Tribunal has to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Statute only. If the department wishes to have relief on the ground that what it had been doing was extra-legal, the remedy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
