9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aceuticals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against Order-in-Appeal No. JAL-EXCUS-000-APP-103-15-16, dated 25-6-2015, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh-I, who rejected their appeal and has upheld the order-in-original rejecting the rebate claims of the applicant for Rs. 2,09,213/-. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this Revision Application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed reliance on the following case laws : (i) Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.-L.B.) (ii) Vikram Ispat - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 800 (Tri.-L.B.) (iii) Metaclad Industries - 2013 (289) E.L.T. 381 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. Personal hearing was held on 5-4-2018. Sh. S.J. Vyas, Advocate, appeared for personal hearing on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed that the total duty paid in respect of the inputs procured from 100% EOU at the rate of 21% of the value of the inputs is duty of central excise and consequently rebate in respect of full excise duty is admissible to them under Rule 18 of C.E.R. and Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The Government finds that the lower authorities have confused the central excise duty paid by the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on account of a measure being the Customs duty provided in proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the Government is fully convinced that entire duty paid by the applicant in respect of the inputs at the rate of 21% is duty of excise only and the rebate of the same is allowed under Rule 18 of the C.E.R., 2002 and Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), as the complian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
