9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplementary claims filed by the appellants cannot be held as time-barred - similar issue decided in the case of SHASUN CHEMICALS & DRUGS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., PONDY [2010 (4) TMI 638 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that as initial claim was within time and was allowed, supplementary claim could not be said to be time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debiting exact freight and insurance from CIF and restricted their rebate claim. Subsequently, appellant filed claims for refund of duty with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise for the amount of ₹ 4,81,184 on 9.10.2006 and another claim of ₹ 29,11,166/- on 11.8.2006. Show cause notices were issued inter alia proposing to reject the refund claim to the tune of ₹ 10,05,986/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FOB value of the subject goods after deducting exact freight and insurance from the total CIF value, was in fact contrary to Circular No.510/06/2000-CX dt. 03.02.2000. yet, the appellant accepted such redetermination and only wanted re-credit of the difference between the claim and the sanctioned amount, in their Cenvat account. (iii) This claim of recredit of the said amount cannot be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reproduced below for ready reference :- "3. I find that as per the practice prevailing, the appellants were being sanctioned about 98% rebate of the duty paid on the export goods in cash and the balance amount was to be taken as credit in the Cenvat account. In the present case, on a claim by the appellants, only a part of the rebate was given by cash and no credit was given of the balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
