9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal filed by M/s. Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited. This matter has since been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Act to be dealt with as an appeal. The issue related to the grant of rebate of duty on excess production of sugar under Notification No. 108/78-C.E., dated 28-4-1978 in respect of sugar produced by the respondent during the period 1-5-1978 to 15-8-1978. Originally, the firm was allowed to avail of rebate of Rs. 10,64,281.96 as incentive rebate vide the order of the Assistant Collector dated 18-9-1978. It was subsequently found out that out of the excess production, the mill has exported 21,705 quintals of sugar under bond, without payment of duty. In terms of Notification No. 108/78-C.E., only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught this to the notice of the Central Excise Officers. This fact was revealed when the Internal Audit Party visited the respondent s factory. The Principal Collector of Central Excise, Madras has also moved a miscellaneous petition in this case which is dated 26-6-1985 seeking amendment to the Review Show Cause Notice of the Government of India. In this petition, it has been submitted that the whole quantity of sugar of 21,705 quintals exported by the respondent would be ineligible for rebate and not the quantity of sugar exported over and above the base level of production and that consequentially, a further amount of Rs. 50,014.98 has to be recoverd from the respondent when as the review show cause notice was issued for recovery of Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an only grant full or partial concession for payment of duty and that, in case where no duty is payable even otherwise, the question of applying the concessional rate would not arise. The Tribunal has observed that the rebate which the appellants are claiming over and above the payment of duty would really amount to a subsidy. Shri C. Natarajan, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the extended time limit for the demand is not available to the department because the respondents had effected the exports by filing all the necessary documents and complying with the procedure for exports under bond under the supervision of the department. He also pointed out that the department had at one stage, specifically clarified that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned Senior Departmental Representative are on merits applicable, yet on the issue of time bar, the case differs from the one cited by the appellant. In that case, it was found that the demand for the recovery of erroneous refund was made within six months, whereas in this case, the show cause notice demanding a recovery is dated 18-7-1980 whereas exports actually took place much prior to that, between 24-10-1978 and 15-12-1978. These exports being under bond, under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules are subjected to examination by the departmental officers in the relevant AR 4-A forms which have to bear even a certificate by the Inspector of Central Excise, to be counter-signed by the Superintendent of Central Excise relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
