9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) in the grounds of appeal. In my considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the directions of remand order dated 01.5.2008, of the Tribunal. Revenue stated in the grounds of appeal that they preferred appeal before Hon'ble High Court against the Tribunal’s order, which is still pending. No order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court against the Final Order dated 01.5.2008. Commissioner (Appeals) rightly passed the order as per directions of the Tribunal. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.E/1204/2010 - Order No. A/10180 / 2015 - Dated:- 25-2-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For Appellant: Shri S.K. Shukla, A.R. For Respondent: Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate Per: P.K. Das 1. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eputy Commissioner was constituted to verify the records, who vice his report dated 5-7-2002 submitted that except for an amount of ₹ 1,83,274/- the incidence of duty does not stand passed on by the assessee to its buyers. However, the said report of the Dy. Commissioner was not accepted by the Asst. Commissioner while passing order in de novo proceedings, who again rejected the refund claim on the point of unjust enrichment. The said order of Asst. Commissioner was again appealed against by the assessee before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his impugned order held in favour of the assessee and allowed the refund claim. However, in respect of part of the refund claim, he held that the same should be credited to their modvat account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside the Adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. The learned Authorised Representative submits that the Revenue filed the appeal against the Tribunals remand order dt.01.05.2008 before the Hon ble High Court, which is still pending. I find that the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have already passed the order as per the Tribunal s order. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), and therefore, the submissions made by learned Authorised Representative has no merits. 6. On perusal of the records and the Tribunals order, it is clear that the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority to verify the use of CENVAT Credit on payment of disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding the earlier OIO No.29/AC/2007/Refund, dt.24.10.2007 which has already been decided by the Hon ble Tribunal. This is extra-judicial and non-application of mind on the part of lower authority. I observe that appellant has produced a calculation sheet marked Annexure 5 with their submissions showing the details of payment of total duty of ₹ 1,72,47,694.54 from PLA account out of which a sum of ₹ 62,16,584 was paid from PLA against the product in dispute and ₹ 1,10,31,111 was paid in PLA account for undisputed products. Thus, it is clear that during the relevant period, because of the compulsion to pay duty from the CENVAT Credit on the dispute goods (which were finally held to be totally exempt), the appellant were co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
