https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257692 The Delhi High Court held that the appellate remedy under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was confined to orders of the adjudicating authority imposing penalty or confiscation, so the maintainability objection failed. On refund of terminal excise duty, the Court held that refund could not be denied merely because exemption had not been availed, where the policy permitted refund in such circumstances. A procedural objection regarding the refund application was also rejected, as the declaration bore the corporation's stamp and stated that Cenvat credit or rebate had not been taken. The refund rejection was set aside and costs were awarded. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2015 17:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257692 The Delhi High Court held that the appellate remedy under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was confined to orders of the adjudicating authority imposing penalty or confiscation, so the maintainability objection failed. On refund of terminal excise duty, the Court held that refund could not be denied merely because exemption had not been availed, where the policy permitted refund in such circumstances. A procedural objection regarding the refund application was also rejected, as the declaration bore the corporation's stamp and stated that Cenvat credit or rebate had not been taken. The refund rejection was set aside and costs were awarded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257692