2015 (4) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the case are that the applicant M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. are manufacturer of excisable goods falling under chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act,  1985 and also get the goods manufactured from various job-workers which are also known as Loan Licensees in a pharmaceutical industry. Around eleven numbers of job-workers had paid duty along with applicable education cess while clearing the goods form their factory premises and the said goods were exported by the applicants wherein the job-workers had issued no objection certificate to the applicants to claim refund/rebate of duty on the goods exported by the applicants The refund claims were filed in the office of Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Raigad. A ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund, vide Order-in-Original No. 1325/10-11 dt. 28-10-2010 for Rs. 20,16,637/-, becomes functus officio and cannot legally pass the subsequent Order-in-Original 1474/10-11 dt. 29-12-2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal allowed the rebate claim for Rs. 63,13,355/- as the amount by Rs. 25,87,266/- was already sanctioned by ACCE. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Original No. 1325/10-11/AC (Rebate) Raigad dt. 28-10-2010 is contrary to legal and factual position and is liable to be set aside on this ground itself. The Assistant Commissioner has erred in passing the impugned Order-in-Original without considering the hardship caused to the applicants by extensive delaying the refund claims. 4.2 Even, so....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of duty as well on Rs. 63,13,355/- already passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 25-09-2013 and 11-03-2014. Hearing held as 11-03-2014 was attended by Shri R.K.Sharma, Advocate and Shri A. Vijay Chaudhery, Consultant on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that in the instant case, 79 rebate claims totalling Rs. 89,03,752/- were rejected by the original authority on the ground that name and address of Maritime Commissioner was either over written or wrongly mentioned. Applicant preferred appeal b....