2017 (6) TMI 417

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... H.S. Saini, DR ORDER The Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of sugar & molasses. During the period December 1976 to June 1977 and May 1978 to 15th August, 1978, they had claimed incentive rebate on excess production under Notification No. 257/76-CE dated 30.09.1996 and Notification No. 108/78-CE dated 28.04.1978 respectively. The factual details of the case pertaining to the show c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 13.7.82 79417.26 108/78-CE dated 28.4.78 30.6.78 & 18.7.78 The Department was of the view that excess rebate was paid to the Appellants since the quantity of sugar exported without payment of duty was not deducted from the quantum of excess production based on which the rebate was paid. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated for recovery of excess paid rebate, considering the same ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction and exports were shown in records and returns submitted to the Department and the rebate claim was granted by the Department only after scrutiny of records and details submitted by the Appellants. He also relied upon the following decisions : (i) CCE, Chandigarh vs Jagatjit Sugar Mills, 1988 (34) ELT 387 (T); and (ii) Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs CCE, 1990 (46) ELT 482 (T). 4. Shri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esent case were sanctioned by the Departmental authorities after scrutiny of records and details submitted by the Appellants. The details regarding the production as well as exports made by the Appellants were already reflected in records and returns submitted to the Department. Accordingly, we are of the view that the charge of wilful suppression is unsustainable. 6. The Appellants have relied....