9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Cummins (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune reported in [2012 (6) TMI 432 - CESTAT, Mumbai] wherein this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the application filed under Rule 6 by the appellant under Rule 7 of the said Rules. Therefore, following the decision of this Tribunal, we remand the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awback rates applied for duty drawback claim under Rule 6 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. As they have claimed higher rate than the 20%, rate their claim lies under Rule 7 of the said Rules. Therefore, as they have not applied for duty drawback claim under Rule 7 ibid, the refund of drawback claim was rejected. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to,- (a) a case of loss of goods, where the loss occurs in transit from a factory to a warehouse, or to another factory, or from one warehouse to another, or during the course of processin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the issue of duty drawback has been entertained by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, we hold that the appeal lies before this Tribunal, accordingly the same are maintainable before this Tribunal. 5. We, further find that in this case duty drawback claim has been rejected only on the premise that instead of applying under Rule 7 of duty drawback claim Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
