2008 (9) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12th September, 1994. 2. Whether the rebate can be granted when the mandatory conditions stipulated under governing Notification No. 41/94-C E (N.T.) (ibid) were not fulfilled by the party." 2. Cross-Reference No. 22 of 2001 has been filed by the assessee wherein it is contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference and the same should have been filed in the Courts at Kolkata. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee exported 100% cotton yarn and applied for rebate claim. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim. An appeal was filed and the ground taken by the Revenue was that the goods were not exported from the factory but from the branch office an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee that the assessee was entitled to rebate of Rs. 46,064/-. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the department with the Commissioner of appeals, Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh. This appeal was allowed. Thereafter, the assessee straight-way approached the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal. We failed to understand how the Kolkata Bench had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Be that as it may, since the assessee itself had submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner at Shimla, he cannot at this stage challenge the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The only ground which weighed with the learned Tribunal was that the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide its notification dated 22-1-1975 had clearly permit....