TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 11-1-2018 have been filed by M/s. Kotsons Pvt. Ltd., Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against Orders-in-Appeal No. 250-255(SM)/CE/JPR/2017, dated 11-10-2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur, wherein the appeals of the applicant against Orders-in-Original No. 180-185/R/2014, dated 20-8-2014 have been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te claims were rejected vide the impugned orders-in-original and has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Personal hearing in the case was granted on 14-11-2019. The Advocate of the applicant, Sh. Bipin Garg, appeared for personal hearing and contended that CESTAT has granted benefit in the case of M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs [2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms duty on the procurement of inputs subsequent to export of finished goods under bond. The applicant contended that there is no condition in Notification No. 96/2009-Customs, dated 11-9-2009 which bars grant of rebate of Central Excise duty paid on export goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, if goods are exported on payment of duty. The applicant has quoted Condition No. (vi) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise Rules, 2002. It is observed that the interpretation of the respondent that an assessee who has been issued Advance Authorisation license under Notification No. 96/2009-Customs, dated 11-9-2009 cannot export goods on payment of duty and subsequently claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is erroneous. Secondly the applicant has relied on judgment in the case of M/s. I....