9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation, if any, and fulfilment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification. Since “Rebate of duty” is separately provided for it cannot be equated with “drawback” under Rule 2 of the said Rules - there is no bar in entertaining an Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), determining the duty drawback - CESTAT has properly exercised jurisdiction - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 99 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2017 - A. S. Oka And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. Mangalambhar Dwivedi, with Mr. Sham V. Walve, for the Appellant Mr. Prakash Shah, with Mr. Prasad Paranjape i/b PDS Legal for the Respondent JUDGMENT ( Per Riyaz I. Chagla J.) 1. The Appellant has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the applications for drawback filed by the Respondent under Rule 7 instead of Rule 6 of the said Rules. The Appeal herein has challenged the impugned order of CESTAT dated 5th August 2014 and has raised substantial questions of law in paragraph 4 of the Appeal which reads thus:- In the aforesaid premises state above, the Appellant herein humbly submits that the following substantial question of law arises I the present appeal of great public importance for determination of this Hon'ble Court: a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT, Mumbai is correct in passing an order without jurisdiction? b) Whether in the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as CESTAT has considered an Appeal from the order of the Commissioner, wherein the issue of rate of drawback had been determined. Mr. Mangalambhar has accordingly submitted that the present Appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 5. Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Counsel for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgement and has contended that an appeal will lie to CESTAT from an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to drawback . 6. Having heard the arguments, we observe that under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, Rebate of Duty has been specifically provided for in Rule 18 which reads thus:- Rule 18, Rebate of duty. Where any goods are expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
