9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C/Ref/54/Din-III/2010 dated 05/08/2010 rejected refund claim of Rs.1,38,223/- and sanctioned the remaining amount of Rs.2,37,728/-. This OIO was passed by the Adjudicating Authority without issuance of show-cause notice and without personal hearing being given to the assessee. Thus, the Order-in-Original dated 05/08/2010 was violative of the principles of natural justice. The department accepted the OIO, hence the part of the refund which was sanctioned by the JAC has attained finality. 3. The assessee preferred appeala before then Commissioner (Appeals) against the said OIO dated 05/08/2010 only for refund of Rs.1,38,223/- which was not sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeal) vide Order-in-Appeal No.439/2010(ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No.439/2010. 6. Department's appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) against OIO dated 12.01.2011 sanctioning refund came to be rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.189/2011 (STC)/K. Anpazhakan/Commr.(A)/Ahd. dated 22/11/2011. The Commissioner (A) observed that on the date when the adjudicating authority passed Order sanctioning refund claim the OIA No.439/2010 was in vogue as no appeal against the said OIA was filed by the department. The Commissioner (A) also observed that correctness of sanctioning of refund will be determined on the basis of the order of CESTAT in the appeal filed by the department against OIA No.439/2010. The department accepted the Order-in-Appeal No.189/2011 dated 22/11/2011 for the reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or rectification of mistake, error has to be apparent from the record and should not require any detailed discussion. The very fact that the whole history of the case involved in two rounds of litigation up to the level of Commissioner (A) and one round before this Tribunal has to be reproduced and finally it had to be submitted that if the Tribunal was aware of the acceptance of the Order-in-Appeal by Revenue decision would have been different itself and would know their own error apparent from the order or record in this case. Moreover, the fact that the department has accepted the order in appeal was to be rejected by Assistant Commissioner and the Revenue could not have been aware in the absence of submission by departmental representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
