Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2007 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (9) TMI 622 - AT - Central Excise

Issues involved: Implementation of Final Order dated 27.3.2002, power of the Tribunal to implement orders u/s 35C (1) of the Central Excise Act.

The judgment pertains to an application filed for the implementation of a Final Order dated 27.3.2002. The order remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with specific directions regarding refund claims for chocolate-covered biscuits, remoulded chocolates, and chocolate confectionery. The Tribunal's order emphasized that future refund claims for the same goods and period should not automatically be considered hit by unjust enrichment, leaving the question open for interpretation. Refund was granted for duty paid on remoulded chocolates, while the matter concerning chocolate confectionery was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further action, ensuring the assessee's right to be heard.

Regarding the power of the Tribunal to implement orders u/s 35C (1) of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal's decision in the case of GMMCO Ltd. Vs. CC was cited. The Tribunal in that case highlighted its authority to intervene under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) rules if its directions are flouted by the departmental authority. It emphasized the importance of ensuring compliance with its directives to prevent unnecessary rounds of litigation for the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that appealable orders passed by the adjudicating authority in response to its directions are subject to scrutiny and intervention if necessary to uphold justice.

In the present case, the Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had issued an appealable order in compliance with its directions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the application for implementation and dismissed the same, affirming the actions taken by the adjudicating authority in response to its directives.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates