TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue's appeals dismissed as non-maintainable due to jurisdictional limits on rebate sanctioning orders.</h1> <h3>CCE & CC, NAGPUR Versus INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals against the Order-in-Appeal, emphasizing that the appeals were not maintainable due to the non-appealability ... Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Rebate of Excise Duty – Proceedings u/s 11 – Held that:- An order of the Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioning rebate of excise duty on export of goods is not appealable before this Tribunal in terms of section 35B (1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Relying upon National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana [2007 (9) TMI 128 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] proceedings under section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not maintainable before this Tribunal - the appeals are not maintainable before this Tribunal – Decided against Petitioner. Issues involved:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal, Adjustment of rebate claims, Appealability of Commissioner's order, Recovery of dues under Customs Act, Maintainability of appeals before Tribunal.Analysis:1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal:The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur, involving 331 appeals and an equal number of stay petitions. The lower appellate authority set aside the adjustment of rebate claims amounting to Rs.10,36,20,569/- against the recovery of Rs.15,79,26,612/- towards ineligible drawback. The Tribunal noted that an order sanctioning rebate of excise duty on export of goods is not appealable before it as per the Central Excise Act, rendering the appeals by the Revenue not maintainable.2. Recovery of Dues under Customs Act:Even if the challenge pertained to the recovery of dues from the rebate claims, it was highlighted that the recovery was conducted under section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, not falling under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Citing precedents like Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Dujodwala Industries and National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, the Tribunal emphasized that proceedings under section 142 of the Customs Act are not maintainable before it. This aspect further solidified the conclusion that the appeals were not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.3. Maintainability of Appeals before Tribunal:In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that the appeals were not maintainable due to the non-appealability of the Commissioner's order sanctioning rebate and the recovery of dues falling under the Customs Act, which is outside the Tribunal's purview. The Tribunal also disposed of the stay applications in line with its decision on the appeals, thus concluding the matter.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the ultimate decision rendered in the case, providing a detailed understanding of the legal aspects addressed in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
