2008 (5) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection of the claim for rebate of Rs. 2,38,130.32 filed by the appellants. 2. The appellants had been availing the benefit of rebate of duty on excess production of sugar during a particular season (in excess of the average production for the seasons as determined) under the provisions of Notification 146/74 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12-1981, the Assistant Commissioner granted rebate of Rs. 5.69 lakhs out of the amount of Rs. 8.07 lakhs claimed by way of rebate, rejecting the balance claim on the ground that no rebate could be granted in respect of sugar cleared without payment of duty for export, as per the provisions of Notification 146/74, on the basis of which rebate was claimed, and thus that quantity had been reduced for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n hearing both sides, I find that there is no merit in this appeal for the reason that the appellants did not challenge the order dated 11-12-1981 sanctioning refund only of part of the amount claimed by the appellants and further because of the fact that the Supreme Court only decided that the percentage of rebate was to be calculated on the basis of excess production and not on the percentage of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X