9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise, Madras. The respondents were sanctioned rebate on excess production of sugar during the period 1-5-1978 to 15-8-1978 in terms of Notification No. 108/78-C.E., dated 28-4-1978 at the rate of Rs. 54/- per quintal for free sale sugar and Rs. 9.60 per quintal for levy sugar. On a check of the factory records, the department found subsequently that the duty actually paid by the respondent was Rs. 3,90,200.34 as against the rebate of Rs. 5,36,216.76 paid which led to excess rebate paid amounting to Rs. 1,46,016.42. The Jurisdictional Assistant Collector issued a Show Cause Notice on 31-10-1980 for its recovery and on obtaining their defence, adjudicated their case by his order dated 5-3-1981 confirming the demand. The respondents a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondent, however, argued that there was no grant of excess rebate and that the department is in error because they have over-looked the production during the incentive period, but have proceeded to trace the ultimate time and date of the removal of the sugar produced during the incentive period. It was also observed that the review show cause notice proposes to recover an amount of Rs. 2,19,798.54 as excess rebate whereas in the order of the Assistant Collector dated 5-3-1981, only Rs. 1,46,016.42 was stated to be excess rebate. He also alleged that they had filed their application for rebate and obtained it after complying with all formalities and furnishing all data. They had not withheld any information nor concealed any facts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it was the responsibility of the assessee to bring to the notice of the Central Excise department regarding the rebate availed. We are, however, unable to sustain this ground in view of the decisions on the criteria for applying extended period and also considering the documentary control over the manufacturing unit that the department has such grounds, as expressed by the Assistant Collector and also reiterated by the Government of India in our view, cannot stand. It is also further observed that the Government of India, in their notice have altered the amount of duty to be recovered from the amount that is shown in the show cause notice issued in the adjudication proceedings before the Assistant Collector and thereby the contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
