2017 (2) TMI 1144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Devender Singh In all these appeals, the appellants have appealed against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, communicated vide Letter No. VIII(48)Tech/DBK/Sahar/72/2006/858 dated 28.04.2008. The appellants had made an application for fixation of brand rate of duty drawback. The Commissioner has rejected the application on the ground that the application filed on 21.08.2006 i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otech Ltd. vs. U.O.I. reported in 2001 (130) ELT 27 (Kar.) (v) Phil Corporation Ltd. vs. U.O.I. reported in 2004 (168) ELT 24 (Bom.) 3. Shri Atul Handa, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue stated that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matters related to drawback. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The appellants have filed their appeals under Section 35B of the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bench entertained the appeal for condonation of delay in a drawback brand rate application and remanded the matter. In another case of Burckhardt Compression (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III reported in 2016-TIOL-1475-CESTAT-MUM, which was an Excise appeal [E/153/2012], a single member bench of this Tribunal dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. In this case, the application for fixation of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X