9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady sanctioned and paid to the appellant, pending disposal of the appeal. - Appeal disposed of. - Application No.E/Stay/881/2012 In Appeal No.E/1267/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2015 - Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President And Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) ORDER Per: G. Raghuram A meandering course of litigation is noticed, which requires to be noticed. The relevant facts are as follows. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order dt.27/01/2012 passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-III), Hyderabad. This order disposed of an appeal preferred by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal which was, to the extent relevant for the present, allowed by the learned Commissioner(Appeals), Hyderabad-III vide order dt. 27/02/2009. This order sanctioned refund of the entire amount claimed while declaring that the assessee is required to remit interest on the subsequent reversal of the CENVAT credit irregularly availed by the assessee. 5. Subsequent to the order dt. 27/02/2009, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad G Division issued a show-cause notice dt. 19/06/2009 proposing to revisit the adjudication order dt. 10/11/2008 and the conclusion recorded therein that the assessee had not recovered excise duty and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Revenue to revisit the validity of the order dt. 10/11/2008, without canvassing the correctness of the appellate order dt. 27/02/2009. Be that as it may. 8. Against the order of appellate Commissioner dt. 16/12/2009 (remitting the matter for consideration by the primary authority regarding application of the unjust enrichment principle), Revenue preferred an appeal to this Tribunal in appeal No.E/551/2010. This appeal by Revenue was dismissed on 13/11/2011 by recording a finding that since the order of remit vide the appellate Commissioner s order dt. 19/06/2009 was in terms of the plea made by the Revenue, there was no justification for appellate interference. 9. It requires to be noticed that against the order of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
