9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed on 31.03.2014 and recovery were ordered in terms of Order-in-Original, which stands confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner's Order-in- Appeal, the fact remains that these orders have been set aside and the case has been remitted back to the respondents to consider the issue afresh as far as rebate claim for Rs. 27,71,599/-. Thus, there is no demand that is remaining in force to be unenforced as on date for a sum of Rs. 27,71,599/-. There is no justification in adjusting the above said amount of Rs. 27,71,599/- from the rebates on exports made by the petitioner, which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to. Adjustments have been made against the respective Order-in-Original have already been given above. Hence, the amounts adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r stood confirmed vide Order-in-Appeal No.52 / 2014, dated 20.08.2014. 3 . The petitioner had earlier exported goods during April, 2014 and filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. These rebate claims were sanctioned by the respondents vide Order-in-Original No.103 / 2012, dated 28.09.2012. By virtue of Order-in-Original No.103 / 2012, dated 28.09.2012, a sum of Rs. 27,71,599/- was sanctioned. 4 . It is this amount, which was sanctioned to the petitioner, has been adjusted by the respondents in the impugned orders as Order-in-Original No.103 / 2012, dated 28.09.2012, sanctioning a sum of Rs. 27,71,599/- was reversed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal No.104 / 2013, dated 20.08.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Appellate Commissioner in Order-in-Appeal No.52 / 2014, dated 20.08.2014 and also the order of the Revisional Authority in Order Nos. 103 - 141 / 2014 - CX, dated 31.03.2014. The said Writ Petition was allowed by following the ratio of this Court laid down by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.393 to 399 of 2015, vide its order dated 23.03.2022. 10 . The case of the petitioner is that in view of the matter being remanded back to the Original Authority by order dated 18.10.2023, in W.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2015, there is no demand that is pending against the petitioner as on date pursuant to Order-in-Original No.2 / 2014, dated 13.03.2014 and therefore, the question of adjustment of the amount vide the impugned orders in these Writ Petitions tog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nasmuch as the petitioner was heard before orders were passed in the present case. 15 . I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 16 . The petitioner's eligibility for rebate on the exports made during months of March, 2013; July, 2011; December, 2011; October, 2011; and January, 2011, which are subject matter of rebate claims in the impugned orders are not in dispute. The impugned Orders-in-Original also confirm that the petitioner is entitled for rebate on the exports made by them. However, while sanctioning rebate claims, adjustments have been made under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in respect of rebate that was sanctioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
