9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the genuinity of endorsement on the pre-printed sales invoices has not been discussed in the order and hence it appears that the stamp endorsements were not appearing on the invoices issued to the buyers and it was alleged that these endorsements made on the pre-printed invoices afterwards for the purpose of submission to the Customs only for claiming the refunds. The date of hearing before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was fixed on 21.08.2012. The Ld. Counsel representing the appellant Company sought adjournment on account of personal inconvenience and prayed for hearing on some other day. The Ld. Commissioner (appeals) ignoring the request for adjournment and proceeded to pass the order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority to pass a fresh order as per law. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant company is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Counsel Shri M.A. Mudimannan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Company drew my attention to the finding in the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2010, wherein the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) before passing the order sanctioning the refund has discussed the entire facts and the legal provisions in detail. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under:- "The Importer has submitted all the TR-6 Challans along with the respective/Bills of Entry. Thus the condition 2 (a) as envisaged in the said notification is fulfilled. All the sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of VAT/CST." He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Clestra Modular Systems Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (249) ELT 152 (Tri.-Mum), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the case back to the original authority w.e.f. 11.05.2001 under Finance Act, 2001. He also relied on the LB decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2014 (306) ELT 326 (Tri.-LB). He further submits that the decision of the LB is squarely applicable and prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the statement of facts and grounds of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 01.08.2008 read with the Board's circular No. 6/2008-Cus. Dated 28.04.2008 and 16/2008-Cus. Dated 13.10.2008 and hence the refund of 4% Additional duty of customs so paid to the tune of Rs. 48,25,743/- is admissible and in order." On going through the statement of facts and grounds of appeal of the Revenue before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the only issue raised by the Revenue is as under:- "The sales invoices bear stamped information and non-admissibility of credit of Additional Duty. The genuinity of such endorsements on the pre-printed sales invoices is not discussed in the order and hence it appears such stamped endorsements were not appearing on the invoices issued to the buyers and they have been put on the pre- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
