9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1604 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of Excess duty - refund claim has been kept in abeyance and the provisional assessment finalized - time limitation - HELD THAT - During the pendency of the appeal of the Department before the Tribunal, the subsequent events from January 18, 2016 to July 6, 2017, as detailed in the above chronology of events, makes it clear that the adjudicating authority has, pursuant to the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals), held a fresh personal hearing in the matter and passed an adjudication order on January 22, 2016 - It is therefore clear that the Department has compiled with the order dated March 18, 2010 of the Commissioner(Appeals) and has given effect thereto. As such, the present appeal of the Department has been rendered infructuous. Both sides agree to this. The appeal filed by the Department is dismissed as infructuous.
Issues:
1. Refund application rejection by Assistant Commissioner 2. Appeal by TSL before Commissioner(Appeals) 3. Order-in-Appeal No.40/JSR/2010 by Commissioner(Appeals) 4. Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) 5. Subsequent events leading to fresh adjudication 6. Compliance with Commissioner(Appeals) order 7. Dismissal of Department's appeal as infructuous Issue 1: Refund application rejection by Assistant Commissioner The Assistant Commissioner rejected TSL's refund application, leading to a series of legal proceedings. The refund claim was filed by TSL in 2005, and despite a reply to the Show Cause Notice in 2008, the application was rejected in 2009. Issue 2: Appeal by TSL before Commissioner(Appeals) TSL appealed the Assistant Commissioner's decision by filing an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) in 2010. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed TSL's appeal in March 2010, stating that the refund claim should have been processed as per law and was not time-barred. Issue 3: Order-in-Appeal No.40/JSR/2010 by Commissioner(Appeals) The impugned order by the Commissioner(Appeals) highlighted the incorrectness of keeping the refund claim in abeyance and finalizing the provisional assessment without addressing the claim as required by law. Issue 4: Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner (Appeals) The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order in 2010. The subsequent events show that the Department took action based on the Commissioner(Appeals) order, conducting a fresh personal hearing and passing an adjudication order in 2016. Issue 5: Subsequent events leading to fresh adjudication The Department, in compliance with the Commissioner(Appeals) order, conducted a fresh personal hearing and issued an adjudication order in 2016, despite TSL's appeal pending before the Tribunal. Issue 6: Compliance with Commissioner(Appeals) order The Department's actions following the Commissioner(Appeals) order rendered the Department's appeal infructuous. Both parties agreed that the Department had complied with the Commissioner(Appeals) order, leading to the dismissal of the Department's appeal. Issue 7: Dismissal of Department's appeal as infructuous Due to the Department's compliance with the Commissioner(Appeals) order and subsequent events, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal as infructuous, as the appeal had been rendered moot by the actions taken post the Commissioner(Appeals) order.
|
