2015 (1) TMI 893

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /RGD/2011 dated 22.12.11 1599/2010.11/AC(Rebate) (Raigad) dated 17.1.2011 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad 2. 371/32/DBK/12-RA No.US/465/RGD/2012 dated 3.8.12 Raigad/ADC/1174/11-12 dated 8.1.2012   2. Brief facts of the cases are that the applicants filed rebate claim of Rs. 226671/- which was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide order-in-original dated 17.1.2011 mentioned at Sr.No.(1) of table above. The department filed appeal against said order-in-original dated 17.1.2011 before Commissioner (Appeals) on following grounds: i) The assessable value in ARE-1 No.34 dated 21.2.2008 was Rs. 944993/- whereas the FOB value shown in the corresponding shipping bill No.6047908 was only Rs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, the applicant submit that the Invoice and ARE-1 were showing the amount as Rs. 9,44,993/- and through oversight the amount was shown in Shipping Bill at Rs. 56,971/-. This clarification was given to the Rebate sanctioning authority at the time of filing the rebate application and also to the deficiency memo. On due verification of the records with Bank Realization Certificate produced, the rebate is sanctioned as appearing in the order in original. 3.2 With regard to the Notification No.43/2001 CE(NT) dated 26/06/2001 and 21/2004 CE (NT) dated 06.06.2004 mentioned in the ARE-1. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise further erred in demanding the refund amount on the ground that the appellants have availed the facilty of Notifica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (Rebate), Raigad vide order-in-original dated 17.1.2011. The department preferred appeal against rebate sanctioning order dated 17.1.2011 before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order-in-appeal dated 22.12.2011 set aside the said order-in-original dated 17.1.2011 and allowed department's appeal. Consequently, Addl. Commissioner of Central excise vide order-in-original dated 30.1.2012 confirmed the demand of erroneously sanctioned rebate of Rs. 226671/-. The applicants filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order-in-appeal dated 3.8.2012, rejected the same. Now, the applicant has filed these two revision applications against above mentioned two orders-in-appeal dated 22.12.2011 and dated 3.8.2012 on the grounds stated ab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X