9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If, the petitioner would have preferred independent applications for refund of the claim under Section 11B(2) of the Act in that case, the applications of the petitioner for refund of the claim would be required to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the appeals preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer appeals against the order of the Commissioner( Appeals), rejecting the appeals preferred by the IPCL and confirming the order passed by the Asst. Collector, rejecting the refund claim applications of the IPCL. - Decided against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner is aggrieved person - Hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IPCL') submitted 28 different refund applications under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was the case on behalf of the IPCL that they are manufacturing different petrochemicals and chemicals. C-4 Raffinate ( Liquefied Petroleum Gas, LPG') is one of the products manufactured by them. They were supplying these products to the nearby factory of M/s. Gujarat Petrosyntheses Ltd .( GPL) through pipeline. After utilisation of the said product at the consignee's factory in the manufacture of polyisobutylene , some quantity is returned through pipeline again to M/s. IPCL. This returned stream is claimed to be unreacted portion of the feed stream, which was origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by a speaking and detailed reasoned order on merits, rejected the aforesaid appeals preferred by the IPCL. It appears that the IPCL, who paid the Excise Duty on the aforesaid excisable goods and claimed the refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, did not challenge the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) passed in 28 appeals. However, subsequently, the present petitioner preferred the aforesaid appeals before the learned Tribunal and by the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed all the appeals preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to file such appeals. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person aggrieved'. 8. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application. 9. Present petition is opposed by Shri . Gaurang Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Revenue. It is submitted that, as such, the petitioner never submitted any applications for refund under Section 11B of the Act and it was the IPCL, who paid the Excise Duty and submitted the applications under Section 11B of the Act, and therefore, when the IPCL failed upto the Commissioner( Appeals) and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the refund claims of the IPCL, has not been challenged by the IPCL, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved'. It is submitted that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng different applications before the Asst. Collector by submitting that they were entitled to the exemption on the goods on which they paid the Excise Duty. However, the Asst. Collector rejected the said applications on merits. Thereafter, Commissioner( Appeals), in appeals preferred by the IPCL, confirmed the orders passed by the Asst. Collector, rejecting their refund claim applications. It is required to be noted that, as such, IPCL, who submitted the applications for refund under Section 11B of the Act, did not carry the matter further. Instead, the petitioner filed appeals before the learned CESTAT, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was passed in the appeals preferred by the IPCL, and by which the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 11(2) of the Act. If, the petitioner would have preferred independent applications for refund of the claim under Section 11(2) of the Act in that case, the applications of the petitioner for refund of the claim would be required to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the appeals preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer appeals against the order of the Commissioner( Appeals), rejecting the appeals preferred by the IPCL and confirming the order passed by the Asst. Collector, rejecting the refund claim applications of the IPCL. 13. Now, so far as reliance placed on by the learned Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
