9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41 which was rejected by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise - Held that:- On perusal of records, Government observes that the first two appeals filed in time claiming interest were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Applicant had not challenged rejection of part rebate claim of ₹ 60741/- in these appeals. The another two appeal filed subsequently were time barred on the one hand and not legally maintainable, in view of first two appeals. The ignorance of law cannot be excuse for filing second set of appeals. As such two appeal filed subsequently were rightly dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals). - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against assessee. - F.No. 195/41-44/10-RA - 75-78/14-CX - Dated:- 13-3-2014 - Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for delayed payment of rebate claims but dismissed other two appeals filed subsequently being time barred and non- maintainable. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed these revision applications under section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 It is a question of fact that the applicants, initially filed first appeal, within the normal limitation, against the Order-in-Original No., 783/10-11/AC (Rebate)/ Raigad, dated 16-08-2010, claiming therein Interest on the delayed payment of rebate. 4.2 While filing the aforestated, appeal, against the Oder-in-Original the applicants missed the point that the dealing clerk did not consider the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Duty by the applicants on higher assessable value should have been allowed as Cenvat credit by the original authority in the Cenvat credit account maintained by the applicants, under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 27-09-2013 12-03-2014. Nobody appeared for hearing on these dates on behalf of the applicant. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government observes that the first two appeals filed in time claiming interest were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Applicant had not challenged rejection of part rebate claim of ₹ 60741/- in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
