Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (5) TMI 716 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - Application against outstanding arrears - Held that - It appears that the respondent is disputing appropriation of the refund amount against outstanding arrear and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) rightly observed that the assessee should be given opportunity to defend their case which is part of principles of nature justice - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against order remanding matter to original authority for refund claim appropriation. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter to the original authority regarding the appropriation of a refund claim against outstanding arrears. The issue at hand was whether the original authority's decision to adjust the refund amount against the arrears was justified or prejudicial to the appellant's interest. Upon hearing both sides, the judge noted that the issue in question was narrow, and after rejecting the stay application, proceeded with the appeal hearing. The original authority had sanctioned the refund claim but appropriated the amount against outstanding arrears. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, citing a breach of principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing before the appropriation decision. The learned D.R. representing the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal, arguing against the necessity of a personal hearing for appropriation of dues against arrears. However, the judge disagreed, stating that the respondent disputed the appropriation, and it was essential to provide an opportunity for the assessee to defend their case, as per principles of natural justice. Ultimately, the judge found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, as it was deemed appropriate to grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, upholding the remand order for fresh adjudication after disclosing the proposed action and providing a personal hearing opportunity.
|