9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngaged in manufacture and export of cotton yarn and manmade yarn, had filed 15 rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, totalling Rs. 59,16,907/- with respect to goods exported during May and June, 2008. The duty paid on the goods exported was paid from Cenvat credit account at the rates prescribed under Notification No. 29/2004. The goods were exported under duty drawback scheme as per Notification No. 68/2007-Cus dated 16/07/2007, on which the Appellants did not take credit of duty paid on the corresponding inputs, in relation to manufacture of goods which were exported. These facts are corroborated as per ARE-I which were duly approved by the Jurisdictional Range Officer. 3. The Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice dated 09/02/2012 issued by the High Court. 8. In the meantime, the Revenue issued 15 Show-Cause Notices, on protective basis, all dated 12/01/2010 for demand totalling Rs. 59,16,907/-. The Appellant had requested to keep the Show-Cause Notice in abeyance as the matter was sub-judice. However, the Assistant Commissioner passed ex-parte Order-in-Original No. 3- 17/2012-CE (demand) dated 13/02/2012 confirming the total demand as proposed Rs. 59,16,907/-in the protective Show-Cause Notices, alongwith interest of Rs. 36,11,907/- under Section 11AB of the Act. 9. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred Appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), which were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 57 (VC) CE/JPR-II/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleased to reject the appeals observing that-in terms of Section 11 of the Act, the adjudicating authority is empowered to deduct the amount so payable, from any money owing to the person from whom such sums may be recoverable or due, which may be in his hand or under his disposal or control or may be in the hands of another officer, specially when the Appellants lost their Appeal before the Revisional Authority in the Ministry of Finance, GOI. Accordingly held that the adjudicating authority have rightly adjusted the adjudicated amount of Rs. 59,16,907/- alongwith interest against the sanctioned rebate amount. 13. Being aggrieved the Appellant is before this Tribunal inter alia on the grounds that (i) No recovery under Section 11 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard to rebate totalling Rs. 59,16,907 was sub judice before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court on the date of adjustment vide orders-in-original dated 28.01.2013. The said order is patently illegal and in violation of the instructions of the Board's Circular No.13/92-CX-6 dated 4.11.1992. I further find that this Tribunal in its precedent judgement in the case of Voltas Ltd. Vs. CCE (Supra) has held that Section 11 can be invoked only when the demand proposed to be adjusted have reached finality. Similar view was taken by another Division Bench in Nirmal Products Vs. CCE (supra). 17. I further find that as the dispute relating to rebate for the amount of Rs. 59,16,907/- has been subjudice before one appellate forum or the other and passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
