2011 (6) TMI 372 - AT - Customs

Stay of operation - refund of Rs.1.30 crores - Held that - Revenue has been able to satisfy with reference to the note sheet that the grounds of appeal were very much available when the review order was passed and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is factually incorrect - Therefore the ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case against the Revenue is erroneous. Since no decision has been passed on merits of the refund to the assessees set aside and remit the case to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision on the merits of the case - The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of refund by adjudicating authority
2. Appeal by Revenue to Commissioner (Appeals)
3. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to grounds of appeal
4. Review of order by Commissioner (Appeals)
5. Stay of operation of impugned order
6. Decision of the Appellate Tribunal

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, comprising Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President, and Hon'ble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member, considered a case where the adjudicating authority had granted a refund of Rs.1.30 crores to the assessees. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging this refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, citing that the grounds of appeal were drafted after the review order, indicating a lack of proper consideration. The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal were indeed available at the time of the review order, contradicting the Commissioner's finding. As no decision had been made on the merits of the refund, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order related to the respondent and remitted the case for a fresh decision on the merits. The appeal was allowed for a remand to the lower appellate authority for expedited consideration.

The Tribunal, led by Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President, and Hon'ble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member, granted a stay of the operation of the impugned order. Subsequently, the Tribunal proceeded to address the appeal itself for final disposal, with the consent of both parties. This decision allowed for a comprehensive review of the case and ensured a fair consideration of all aspects involved.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of proper consideration of grounds of appeal and the need for a thorough examination of the merits of a case before making a decision. The Tribunal's ruling to remit the case for a fresh decision on the merits emphasized the significance of a fair and just adjudication process in matters of refund and appeals.