9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details regarding the production as well as exports made by the Appellants were already reflected in records and returns submitted to the Department. Accordingly, we are of the view that the charge of wilful suppression is unsustainable. The Department cannot recover excess production rebate on the ground of time bar u/s 11-A - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 1905 of 2007 - FINAL ORDER NO. 53315/2017 - Dated:- 16-5-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Rep by Shri Alok Arora, Adv. Rep. by Sh. H.S. Saini, DR ORDER The Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of sugar molasses. During the period December 1976 to June 1977 and May 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80-81/110 dated 13.7.82 79417.26 108/78-CE dated 28.4.78 30.6.78 18.7.78 The Department was of the view that excess rebate was paid to the Appellants since the quantity of sugar exported without payment of duty was not deducted from the quantum of excess production based on which the rebate was paid. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated for recovery of excess paid rebate, considering the same as erroneously refunded. The original authority confirmed such demand amounting to ₹ 2,03,635/-. The same was also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri Alok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.1982 and 13.07.1982. The show cause notices have also alleged suppression on the part of the Appellants and has invoked the extended period of limitation. On a perusal of case records, we find that the refunds involved in the present case were sanctioned by the Departmental authorities after scrutiny of records and details submitted by the Appellants. The details regarding the production as well as exports made by the Appellants were already reflected in records and returns submitted to the Department. Accordingly, we are of the view that the charge of wilful suppression is unsustainable. 6. The Appellants have relied upon the case laws, as indicated above. We note that the decision of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Allahabad vs Kashi Sah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
