9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are concerned when CAS 4 certificates filed for the refund period have not been disputed by the department. On one hand the department is accepting CAS 4 certificates for inter unit transfer clearances and on the other hand rejecting the refund claims lodged on the basis of the very same CAS 4 certificates which have been accepted. Rejection of the refund claim does not appear to be legally correct. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and lower authority directed to re-examine the entire issue and pass fresh orders, after observing principles of natural justice. The appellant shall also satisfy the respondent that there is no unjust enrichment. As held by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in C.C. vs. B.P.L. Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 66 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent is the manufacturer of copper rod and having one sister unit at Roorki-Uttarakhand. They are clearing the goods to their sister unit as per CAS4. The period relates to the dispute is from July 2008 to March 2011. It was noticed by the respondent that they are paying excess duty on the clearance of copper rod to their sister unit as per CAS-4. Therefore, they filed periodical refund claim for the excess duty paid by them for clearance made to their sister unit. Initially, the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the terms that - (a) the respondent has not followed the provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, (b) the CA certificates produced by them are not correct and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority to process the refund claim and sanction the eligible amount as per law. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is to be upheld. 6. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 7. In the earlier round of litigation the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under:- I have examined the impugned order and submissions. The fact that appellants have not followed the provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is irrelevant to the instant case and also cannot be the ground for rejection of refund claim. Sale made to independent buyers and the assessment method adopted thereto is totally irrelevant and out of context in so for as the present refund cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the adjudication order is not in connivance with remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has again directed the adjudicating authority to sanction the eligible amount as per law. The ground taken by the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority is not correct in the facts of this case. In fact, we agree that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority but in this case the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not remitted back to the adjudicating authority. In fact he has set aside the adjudication order. Therefore, the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
