2018 (1) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order-in-appeal No.DMN-EXCUS-000-APP-228-13-14 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Customs and Service Tax Vapi. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed rebate claim amounting to Rs. 72,05,780/- on 20.01.2010. The said rebate claim was though sanctioned but outstanding interest amount of Rs. 23,01,034/- pertaining to pending dues against the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said order Revenue filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn, set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and allowed the Revenue's appeal. Hence, present appeal. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in interpreting the meaning and scope of the 'relevant date' prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the sanctioned rebate claims. It is his contention that since the amount was already considered as admissible rebate claim and sanctioned to them therefore, filing second refund claim again after the interest amount is correctly calculated in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not required under the law. A refund claims once decided by the adjudicating authority and subsequently on app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the rebate claim, become time bar when claimed by the appellant subsequent to the order in appeal determining the correct amount of interest required to be appropriated against the rebate claims. I find that undisputedly the rebate claim of Rs. 72,05,080/- was sanctioned to the appellant however, there was an outstanding interest dues pending against the appellant which was appropriated by the ad....