9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Indore [1998 (5) TMI 72 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], more than one refund claim can be filed in a quarter. - Matter remanded back - Ex. Appeal Nos.345-348/06 & 1973/08 - Final Order No. 70355-70359/2016 - Dated:- 30-6-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Atul Gupta Hrishikesh, both Advocates for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commr. (A.R.) for the Department ORDER These 5 (five) appeals are filed by M/s J.K.Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise Customs, Meerut II. The Ex.Appeal Nos.345-348/2006 are challenging the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 305-308-CE/MRT-II/2005 dated 16.12.2005 passed by Commr. of Central Excise Customs, Meerut II and Ex. Appeal No. 1973/2008 is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.88/CE/MRT-II/2008 dated 30.05.2008 passed by Commr. of Central Excise Customs, Meerut II. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, M/s J. K. Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd., are manufacturers of bulk drugs falling unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst this Tribunal's Order dated 14.05.2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 06.02.2004 dismissed the said SLP, bearing No.Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)......CC 947/2004. Subsequently, the appellants filed various letters to the departmental authorities for implementation of this Tribunal's Order dated 14.05.2003. Subsequently, the appellants filed the Misc. Application before this Tribunal with a prayer to implement the Tribunal's Order dated 14.05.2003. This Tribunal decided the said Misc. Application through its order dated 08.09.2004, wherein directions were issued to Revenue to sanction the refund as ordered through Final Order dated 14.05.2003 and also to pay interest at the applicable rate from the expiry of three months after the date of filing of applications for refund till the date of payment. 2.6 In the mean time, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, passed four orders, bearing Nos.41/04, 42/04, 43/04 and 44/04 all dated 03.09.2004 granting partial refund. Since the partial refund was granted, the appellants preferred an appeal against the said four orders passed in 2004 before the Id.Commissioner (Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondent by filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therein the correctness of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner is being examined. The learned Solicitor General submits that either the Tribunal should have awaited for the decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) or else should have itself examined whether the orders in the matter of quantification, examining the factual aspects, passed by the Assistant Commissioner were correct or not without which a blanket direction for refund could not have been made. 10. We find merit in this submission. Inasmuch as the order of the Tribunal impugned herein does not reflect these factual questions having been gone into by the Tribunal, the impugned order dated 8-9-2004 is set aside. The case is sent back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, as advised, either await the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of quantification of refund or else may itself go into the question and quantify the amount of refund. In the event of the Tribunal arriving at a finding that some amount is due and payable to the respondent by way of refund and the Revenue has unreasonably withheld the refund then the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round of litigation before the original authority, all the refund claims were rejected. In the second round of litigation, out of the total refund claimed in four applications totaling to ₹ 1,87,06,765/-,an amount of ₹ 29,79,940/- and interest of ₹ 27,78,100/- was granted. In the third round of litigation, the Order-in-Original dated 18.12.2007, the total sanction refund amount comes to ₹ 69,91,409/-, which includes refund sanctioned during second round of litigation. Against the said order dated 18.12.2007, the appellants filed the appeal before the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) who through his Order-in-Appeal No.88/CE/MRT II/2008 dated 30.05.2008, decided the said appeals and upheld the order-in-original dated 18.12.2007. The appellant preferred appeal bearing No. E/1973 of 2008 against the said Order-in-Appeal dated 30.05.2008. 3. Now, the grounds of appeals are that quantification was done as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the parameter taken for deciding admissible or inadmissible modvat credit for refund, are not as per law. Some of the credit was denied stating that it is hit by limitation as provided under Section 11B of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
