2006 (3) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate, for the Appellant. Shri Uday Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President]. - The applicant has challenged the order of the Commissioner demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 1,05,97,800.04 (Rupees one crore five lac ninety seven thousand eight hundred and paise four only) and imposing penalty of the like amount. 2. The learned counsel for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... will be requested to pay excise on fuel uplifted from Kolkata. 3. None of these communications apparently mitigate the nature of the rebate contemplated by the notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 12 contemplates that the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, grant rebate of duty paid on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....conditions laid down in any notification issued under the rule have not been complied with. 3.1 The notification in question was issued on 9-9-1967 and was amended from time to time. The last amendment being with effect from 28-2-1986. By this notification a copy of which is on record at Annexure 'A', it was, inter alia, provided that in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 12 of the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Nepal and Bhutan, the rebate was wrongly taken, appears to be justified. 4. It was further contented by the learned Counsel that a part of the demand was barred by limitation inasmuch as in respect of the period from March, 1994 to November 1996, show cause notice was issued on 18-8-1997 for recovery of Rs. 37,59,747.89. The question whether there was suppression of facts will be examined....