2024 (5) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....014 [Order-in-Original No. 31/2014-R, dt. 19.05.2014] 14.10.2014 8,59,634/- 2. 3288/2015 Order-in-Original No.53/2014-R 13.08.2014 3,58,789/- 3. 3289 / 2015 Order-in-Original No.52/2014-R 13.08.2014 4,21,852/- 4. 3290 /2015 Order-in-Original No.54 /2014-R 14.08.2014 83,430/- 5. 3293 / 2015 Order-in-Original No.62 /2014-R 18.08.2014 1,02,952.18 (Interest) 2. The petitioner had exported goods and filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. These rebate claims were allowed by the respondents. However, while sanctioning the amounts, the amounts have been adjusted towards the liability of the petitioner, pursuant to Order-in-Original No.2 / 2014, dated 13.03.2014, which order stood confirmed vide O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rebate claim of Rs. 27,71,599/- was thus confirmed. Meanwhile, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revisional Authority, vide order dated 31.03.2014, in respect of 39 different rebate claims Vide Order Nos.103 - 141 / 2014 - CX, rejected the case of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner thus challenged the order of the Revisional Authority, dated 31.03.2014, in Order Nos.103 - 141 / 2014 - CX as also Order-in-Appeal No.52 / 2014, dated 20.08.2014 of the Appellate Commissioner, confirming the Order-in-Original No.2 / 2014, dated 13.03.2014 in W.P.(MD)No.1220 of 2015. 9. This Court, vide order dated 18.10.2023, set aside the order of the Appellate C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcular No.967/01/2013- CX, dated 01.01.2013, was questioned. This Court held that the authorities cannot take coercive steps till the disposal of the stay petition. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred several other decisions apart from the decisions of this Court. 13. Defending the impugned order, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that there are few arithmetical discrepancies and therefore, the matter may be remanded back. 14. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would further submit that decision of this Court rendered in M/s.Arunachala Gounder Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. [cited supra] will not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petition....