9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were engaged in the manufacture of sugar & molasses. During the period December 1976 to June 1977 and May 1978 to 15th August, 1978, they had claimed incentive rebate on excess production under Notification No. 257/76-CE dated 30.09.1996 and Notification No. 108/78-CE dated 28.04.1978 respectively. The factual details of the case pertaining to the show cause notices are as under : S.No. Ince ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 Rs. 2,03,635/-. The same was also uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt only after scrutiny of records and details submitted by the Appellants. He also relied upon the following decisions : (i) CCE, Chandigarh vs Jagatjit Sugar Mills, 1988 (34) ELT 387 (T); and (ii) Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs CCE, 1990 (46) ELT 482 (T). 4. Shri H.C. Saini, learned DR for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. 5. On perusal of records, we note that the Appellants have cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 Sahkari Chini Mills, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
