2018 (3) TMI 821

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For The Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Commissioner (AR) PRDER Per: Shri Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) has adjusted the amount of rebate claim filed by the appellant against the dues pending against them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed 103 rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the matter has reached upto this Tribunal and in terms of amended provisions of Section 35F of the Act, the appellant has made a pre-deposit of 10% of the duty in both the case and as per the said provisions, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of remaining amount till disposal of the appeals, therefore, impugned demands against the order dated 2.6.2008, 31.5.2010 and 20.1.2011 cannot be adjusted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 2.6.2008. Therefore, the demand confirmed against the order dated 2.6.2008 is not sustainable and hence the same cannot be adjusted, consequently is to be refunded to the appellant. 7. With regard to OIO dated 31.5.2010 and 20.1.2011, as per amended provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, if the assessee made a mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the amount in dispute, the waiver of ....