Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (9) TMI 1410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etween 5-12-2005 to 14-5-2006. On the allegation that some of the raw materials were physically not received by the appellant against the bills/invoices and hence, the same could not be used in the manufacture of utensils for exports, show cause notice was issued on 5-12-2011 to recover an amount of Rs. 26,39,771/- which was paid as rebate. 3. Ld. Counsel Dr. G.K. Sarkar, appearing for appellant company and it's Director contended that the SCN issued in this case was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under law. To buttress this argument, attention was drawn towards the rebate sanction orders for the period from 8-12-2006 to 18-9-2007 covering the said demand amount. The ld. Counsel referred the last but one para of the said o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imitation has not been considered in the impugned order. 4. The ld. Counsel strongly argued that the proceeding in the instant case is vitiated because of violation of Principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as the allegations in the show cause notice are based mainly on the statements of some of the transporters, but request for cross-examination of the said transporters have not been allowed by the adjudicating authority and also by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case laws referred in support of cross-examination to be allowed were not discussed in the Order-in-Original as well as in the Order-in-Appeal. In support of his contention, the ld. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case of J.&K. Cigarettes reported as 2009 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the ld. Counsel that the appellant has filed rebate claim to the tune of Rs. 4,22,38,483.14/- for 2004-05 and 2005-06 and their export turnover during the period was to the tune of 22 crores and disputed amount is only 26,39,771/- and the allegation is only wrong mentioning of vehicle numbers in some of the invoices. Reliance has also been placed on the case of R.S. Industries reported as 2008 (228) E.L.T. 347 (Del.) and Juhi Alloys Ltd. reported as 2014 (302) E.L.T. 487 (All.) and Shakti Roll Cold Strips reported as 2008 (229) E.L.T. 661 (P&H). It is contended that the only alternative source of raw material relied upon by the department as RUD-60 (Page 135 of Appeal Memo) relates to period 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004 which is obviously not th....