9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent/Joint Secreatary under section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. By the impugned order the first respondent/Joint Secretary has affirmed the Order-in-Appeal Nos.108 to 114 of 2011 dated 28.03.2011 passed by the third respondent/Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting the petitioner's appeal against Order-in-Original No.42 of 2009 dated 31.08.2009. 3. By these orders, the respondents have rejected partially rebate claim to an extent of Rs. 87,69,879/- by allowing rebate claim for a sum of Rs. 36,16,398/- out of total to be claimed for a sum of Rs. 1,23,86,277/-. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Facts are not in dispute. During the period between July 2008 to January 2009, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 7 20.07.2009 9,82,267 18 ARE-I in the month of Jan,09 1,23,86,277 7. Under these circumstances, a Show Cause Notice No.28 of 2009 dated 03.08.2009 was issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent/Commissioner of Central Excise. The said Show Cause Notice was issued to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 86,75,640/-as detailed in Annexure-I should not be demanded under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. The Show Cause Notice also called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount paid by the petitioner on 02.02.2009 should not be appropriated. The notice also separately called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st respondent/Joint Secretary under section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which culminated in the impugned order dated 29.01.2013 bearing reference Order No. 83-89/2013-CX. 13. It is noticed that the first respondent/Joint Secretary has allowed claim for a sum of Rs. 36,16,398/- from the total rebate claim of Rs. 1,23,86,277/- covered by seven different rebate claims filed by the petitioner as detailed above. The fact that they were claim to an extent of Rs. 36,16,398/- has been allowed indicates that to an extent of Rs. 12,73,308/- and an amount of Rs. 24,39,593/- was correctly debited from the said CENVAT account and the Personal Ledger Account respectively. 14. The facts also indicate that before the refund claims were made, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e credit of the Central Government together with interest on 02.02.2009. 19. The exports are not be burdened with tax liability. The petitioner was not entitled for rebate, the alternative benefit of export under bond without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be denied to the petitioner. 20. Considering the fact that the petitioner has squared up the liability and exported the goods and also has received exports proceeds, the impugned orders rejecting the rebate claims cannot be sustained. Penalty for the wrongdoing was the subject matter of the order of the Settlement Commission dated 27.09.2010. It brings curtain down, as far as the wrongdoing is concerned. The settlement commission has not only acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
