9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order dated 9-1-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. The appellants manufacture sugar. They filed a rebate claim under Notification No. 132/82, dated 21-4-1982 as amended by Notification No. 193/82, dated 11-6-1982 in respect of the excess production of sugar in the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sanction of the rebate has been made provisionally by Assistant Collector should have been sanctioned finally and in such a situation the Collector (Appeals) according to the appellants should have remanded the matter directing such finalisation of the rebate claim. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal of Larger Bench in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. P.M.T. Machine Tools, rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept the argument of the learned Consultant that until there was finalisation of the rebate sanction order, the matter does not become concluded. This is because the statute provided for provisionally only in respect of assessment, Rule 9B prescribes provisional assessment to duty and under Explanation to Section 11B inter alia it has been provided for the purposes of limitation that such limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposing of the rebate claim and had assailed it before the Collector (Appeals) on merits. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal before the Collector shows that under the grounds of appeal therein no specific ground based on the sanction order being provisional had been taken. However, the learned Consultant had urged that there is a reference to the provisional grant to the narration of facts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise v. Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 551 (Tribunal) wherein the very same notification as are involved in this appeal came up for consideration. Also see the decision of the Tribunal in Final Order No. 186/95-D, dated 4-7-1995 in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. M/s. Motihari Sugar Factory. In the result, we do not see any reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
