2013 (11) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....26.06.2001, because no bond was executed as required and also that appellant did not pay duty at the time of clearance of the goods. The OIO dt.25.01.2012 passed by adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dt.15.05.2012 on the ground that the appellant is neither entitled to exemption under Notification No.45/2001-CE(N.T.), dt.26.06.2001 nor under Notification No.20/2004-CE(NT), dt.06.09.2004, against which appellant is in appeal before CESTAT in this appeal. 2. Shri Jas Sanghavi, Adv. appearing on behalf of the appellant in this case argued that there case is of refund of duty which appellant was not required to pay under Notification No.45/2001-CE(NT), dt.26.06.2001. He relied upon the judgment of CESTAT De....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....01 later, which has not been done by the present appellant in the present appeal. Alternately, he preferred to pay duty after the clearance along with interest. In this case, the case will have to be considered as clearance of goods on payment of duty, though belatedly, for which benefit can be claimed vide Notification No.20/2004-CE(NT), dt.06.09.2004. 5. It has been rightly argued by the learned A.R. that since this case is related to rebate of duty and hence appeal lies to the Joint Secretary (Revenue) and not to CESTAT. He has relied upon the judgment of CESTAT Delhi in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE Allahabad (supra). It is observed that in this judgment, following has been held in Para 5.     ....