9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled against order-in-appeal No.Commr.(A)/273/VDR-II/2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs (Vadodara). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to a classification dispute, the assessment was made provisional for the period November 1991 to February 1993. While directing the provisional assessment, the appellant was also directed to execute bond and ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt for Rs. 19,62,547.16/- has been held to be time bar, by the Commissioner vide Order dt.17.12.1997, therefore, appropriation of the outstanding amount against rebate is bad in law. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that after finalization of the provisional assessment, denying benefit of exemption notification No.53/91 dated 25.07.1991, the department encashed the bank gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case to be determined is whether appropriation of Rs. 11,03,247/- by the Revenue against the sanctioned rebate is correct or otherwise. There is no dispute of the fact that pursuant to the provisional assessment the appellant was directed to pay the differential duty of Rs. 19,62,547.16/- and the department encashed the bank guarantee of Rs. 8,59,300/-, the outstanding 11,03,247/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,03,247/- was outstanding (Rs.19,62,547-Rs.8,59,300/- recovered by realizing the Bank guarantees). The Adjudicating Authority, while passing the impugned order dated 27.03.2009, he observed that the Appellants were requested by the Range Superintendent to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 11,03,247/- in terms of the Cestat's order dated 27.08.2003. However, the Appellants failed to pay the said amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
