9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dt 4/10/2010 remanded those case back to the Commissioner (A) to decide the appeals without insisting for a pre-deposit. In the light of above factual matrix, adjustment of arrears from the rebate claim were not justified when separate appeals/stay applications were pending before the appropriate appellate authorities. Full rebate payment was due to the appellant after three months from the date (29/4/2010) of filing the rebate claim but was paid only on 13/5/2011 by the Adjudicating Authority. Interest from 29/7/2010 to 13/5/2011 is payable to the appellant as the rebate claim in fact was sanctioned on 28/7/2010 but adjusted against some arrears which were separately under litigations. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est at appropriate rate in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the CESTAT had finally disposed of the appellants aforesaid appeal by way of remand vide its Final Order No. A/ 1732/ WBA/ AHD/ 2010 dated 04.10.2010 holding that the demand for the normal period was alone sustainable against the appellant. The original authority granted rebate of Rs. 7,28,833/- out of the total amount of Rs. 10,27,242/- after appropriating a sum of Rs. 2,98,409/- towards appellants liabilities under another Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2010 vide its Order-in-Original-No. Refund/ 371/ Ronald/ Div-I/ 11-12 dated 13.05.2011 but did not grant any interest on the delayed payment of rebate. Being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 13.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant was filed on 29/04/2010 which was found admissible and sanctioned on 28/07/2010. However, the same was adjusted against some arrears pending against the appellant. The appropriation made by the Revenue was protested by the appellants that such adjustment without putting them to notice was not permissible. Separate appeals filed against the cases of arrears, against which adjustment was made and CESTAT vide order dt 4/10/2010 remanded those case back to the Commissioner (A) to decide the appeals without insisting for a pre-deposit. In the light of above factual matrix, adjustment of arrears from the rebate claim were not justified when separate appeals/stay applications were pending before the appropriate appellate authorities. Full re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
