M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1667 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 30-5-2018
Appeal No. E\/40030\/2013 – Final Order No. 41675\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nMs. S. Nandita Das, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants filed rebate claim for Rs. 4,81,194\/- under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of excise duty paid on Monochloro Difluoro Methana HCFC – R11. Show cause notice was issued proposing to adjust the rebate against the dues to the extent of Rs. 24,109\/- arisen out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 6<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Appeal No. 67\/2010 dated 30.6.2010. Thus, the appropriation of the amount in consequence of the above order is no longer sustainable. She submitted that the Appeal No. E\/583\/2010 was field by the appellant along with stay petition before Tribunal. The appropriation was done during the pendency of the appeal as well as stay petition. The Board vide Circular No. 7\/90-CX6 dated 2.3.1990 has clarified that no recovery proceedings shall be taken when the appeal and stay petition is pending. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. reported in 2007 (209) ELT 5 (SC) has also clarified the same. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Givaudan India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India – 2013 (292) ELT 161 (M<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, TrichyCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 1667 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 30-5-2018Appeal No. E\/40030\/2013 – Final Order No. 41675\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. S. Nandita Das, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER … Continue reading “M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n