9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants are engaged in the manufacture of battery operated electric cars i.e., electrical cars falling under Chapter Heading 8703.90.10 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services used in the manufacture of final products. Prior to 1.3.2008, appellant were clearing the "battery operated electric cars" on payment of duty at the rate of 8% BED, 1% NCCD, 0.125% Automobile Cess, 2% Education Cess and 1% SHE Cess by availing the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. Further, with effect from 1.3.2008, the said final product became exempted from payment of Central Excise duty by virtue of Notification No.6/2006 as amended by Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the whole facts and the law. He further submitted that the same Commissioner (A) has allowed the refund applications filed by the appellant vide order dated 4.7.2012 and subsequently, the same Commissioner (A) Vide the impugned order has taken a U-turn and rejected the appeal of the appellant. He further submitted that against the order of the Commissioner (A) dated 4.7.2012, Revenue filed three appeals before the Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final Order No.22028-22030/2015 dated 8.10.2015 passed a common order rejecting the appeals of the Revenue by relying upon the variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 5 and the Notification issued thereunder. He further submitted that in pursuance of this direction, the original authority has quantified the amount and rejected the refund by passing a reasoned order and the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (A) was also rejected. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the order dated 4.7.2012 and the impugned order dated 31.10.2014, I find that in the first round of litigation, the Commissioner (A) vide order dated 4.7.2012 in the order portion has allowed three appeals of the appellant and set aside the impugned order and only for the purpose of quantification, he has observed that the same will be done by the original authority as per Rule 5 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
