9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not disputed the factual correctness of the said contention. Therefore, there is no perversity in the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below and there is no violation of Rule 5 ibid. - Decided against the revenue - EXCISE APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2016 - F. M. REIS, K. L. WADANE, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Jain and Mr. D. Pangam, Advocates JUDGMENT (Per F. M. Reis, J.) Heard Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Appeal filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the Order dated 10.10.2013 passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereafter, the Assistant Commissioner passed an Order rejecting the refund claims without referring to the Orders issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds raised in the earlier Orders. The Respondents filed an Appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) against the aforesaid Orders which the Commissioner disposed of by an Order dated 20.01.2010 rejecting the Appeals preferred by the Respondents by taking an altogether new and sole ground that the Respondents are not the manufacturer and, therefore, cannot file refund claim under Rule 5. But, however, the Commissioner(Appeals) gave up the objections raised by the Department in the Show Cause notices and Orders in the original. The Respondents, therefore, filed an Appeal before the CES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their appeal are factually incorrect. The Respondents also contended that the grounds taken by the Department are irrelevant. The Commissioner(Appeals) by an Order dated 22.03.2013, rejected the Appeal filed by the Revenue/Appellant herein. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner(Appeals) held that the ground taken by the Revenue in Appeals are not correct since the pre-audit verification was completed in favour of the Respondents and the grounds were factually incorrect. The Revenue/Appellant herein, thereafter preferred an Appeal against the aforesaid Order before the CESTAT on the very same grounds which were rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals). The CESTAT by the impugned Order dated 10.10.2013, rejected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistant Commissioner it has been categorically stated that all claims were verified by the Range Office and upon scrutiny of the refund claim to the tune of ₹ 10,24,918/-, were time barred as the claim was not filed within one year from the date of export. It was further noted that the Range Office also confirmed that accumulated Cenvat Credit pertains to the inputs used in the manufacture of export goods and the Respondent/Assessee has not been able to utilise the credit as they have not paid any duty through PLA right from January, 2006 to June 2012. The learned Tribunal also noted that it was further found in the said Order that all necessary documents were submitted by the Respondents in the Range office and, accordingly, found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
