9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 118/98 dated 28-9-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy. 2. The appellants are the manufacturers of sugar. Consequent to the introduction of rebate for excess sugar production the appellants applied for sanction of the rebate under Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived from the department and urged the point that the letter C.No. IV/16/490/04-RA.III dated 13-7-94 from the Collector s office decided the total rebate of Rs. 5,74,954.76. He submitted that originally when they filed rebate claim the base period was taken as 1978-79; 1979-80. The department in their letter dated 3-12-83 advised the appellant to revise their claim taking the base periods as 1979- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t base period. After issue of show cause notice the lower authority issued order-in-original dated 25-4-96. This was followed by the impugned order-in-appeal dated 28-9-98. The main thrust of the Advocate s argument is that after the Collector has decided the issue it is not open for authorities lower in rank to the Collector to review his decision. Ld. SDR explained that the department has follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem in Commissioner s C.No.lV/16/490/84 RA III dated 13-11-1984. But in the Commissioner s letter, M/s. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills, Mohanur, have only been authorised to take credit of Rs. 5,74,954.76 in their PLA, as incentive rebate for the period from 1-5-83 to 30-9-83. The said letter does not state that Commissioner has sanctioned the rebate claimed. Section 11A of the Central Excises and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
