9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ld. DR raised the preliminary objection in this matter. He submits that the case relates to the rebate of duty and the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Clause (b) of First Proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant vehemently raised objection ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. v. State of Bihar and Ors. - AIR 1955 SC 661. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the rebate claim without considering the valuation of the goods and, therefore, it is a case of valuation and not the rebate claim. 3. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that in this case show cause notice proposed to deny the rebate claim on export. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utside India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported to any country or territory outside India. Ld. Advocate strongly relied upon Section 35E of the said Act, which provides powers of the Chief Commissioner of Central or Commissioner of Central Excise to pass certain order. Sub-section (4) of Section 35E provides that where the authorized officer the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the rebate claim of Rs. 4,52,953/- under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, as amended. The Commissioner (Appeals) by order-in-appeal dated 23-5-2007 directed the appellants to pay back the amount of Rs. 2,42,427/- along with interest against rebate claim. Thus, it is clear that the case relates to rebate of duty on export. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
