9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1498 - AT - Central ExciseStay application - It is the grievance of the Revenue that instead of probing the facts the adjudicating authority as well as ld.Commissioner(Appeals) simply referred to the averments made in the grounds of appeal before this Tribunal and not carried out further investigation of the facts, in the first round of litigation - Held that - the authorities below had recorded reasons in arriving at the conclusion while allowing the refund to the respondent herein. On an apparent analysis of the said orders we do not find any infirmity or the orders were passed without jurisdiction. The ground raised by the Revenue would be considered at the time of disposal of the Appeal. At this stage we do not find any prima facie case acceding to the request of the Revenue to stay the operation of the impugned Order-in-Appeal - stay application dismissed.
Issues:
Stay application filed by Revenue seeking stay of Order-in-Appeal No.28/GHY/CE(A)/GHY/11 dated 11.05.2011. Analysis: The Tribunal addressed the issue of the stay application filed by the Revenue seeking a stay of the Order-in-Appeal. The Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) did not adequately investigate the facts leading to the dispute, as directed by the Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation. The Revenue argued that the authorities merely relied on the grounds of appeal without further probing the facts. On the other hand, the respondent company's partner argued that both authorities below had thoroughly analyzed the evidence and provided detailed findings supporting their claim for a refund under Notification No.33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal found that the authorities had provided reasons for allowing the refund to the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that there was no prima facie case to grant the Revenue's stay application, as the orders were not passed without jurisdiction and did not exhibit any infirmity. The Tribunal decided to consider the Revenue's grounds at the time of the appeal's disposal and dismissed the stay application for lacking merit. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by Dr. D.M. Misra.
|
