9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A)/Ahd, dt.20.10.10. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent M/s. Niraj Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad is engaged in the manufactures of 100% cotton dyed and finished fabrics, excisable goods falling under chapter sub heading numbers 52082230 and 52083230 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The manufacturer had exported bleached shirting fabrics falling under tariff items number 52082230 and Dyed Shifting Fabrics falling under tariff item number 52083230 through M/s. Ashima Limited, Ahmedabad and M/s. Durham Spintex & Holding Pvt. Ltd., and a rebate claim on 30.04.2010 and 19.05.2010, 21.05.2010, 28.05.2010 and 14.07.2010 for a sum of Rs.4,31,318 & Rs.4,64,876/- in terms of the rule 18 of the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority had incorrectly adjusted the dues of the respondent from their rebate claims against the government arrears. 3. The ld. DR would submit that provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act provides for recovery of duty or any other sums of account payable to Central Government under the Act to deduct the said amount from any money owing to the person from whom such sums is recoverable or due. It is his submission that in the present case, by confirmation of the demand under order in appeal No. 313/09 (Ahd-I)CE/RLM/Commr(A)/Ahd, dated 23.10.09 as the first appellate authority has upheld the order in original as well as the adjudicating authority in order in original No.21/JC/2010. It is his submission that when the order in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the lower authorities. 5. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue involved in this case is whether the first appellate authority was correct in setting aside the adjustment of the sanctioned rebate to the dues from the respondent should not have been done as the dispute was before the higher forum i.e. Tribunal. 7. I find that the first appellate authority in her impugned order has recorded the following findings: 9. In view of the above I find that adjudicating authority has incorrectly adjusted the dues of the appellant from their rebate claims because the OIO Number 21/JC/2010 has not been confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). This appears to be a pre-mature action on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
