9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] With CROSS Application No. E/CROSS/50525/2015 - Final Order No. 70787/2017 - Dated:- 27-7-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Appellant Shri S. P. Ojha, Consultant, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 130-CE/LKO/2014 dated 02/09/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had applied for finalization of Provisional Assessments for the Financial Years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000 2000-01 to the Deputy Commissioner, Raibareli who finalized the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) upheld sanction of the total refund of ₹ 1,59,81,121/- and set aside recovery of interest amounting to ₹ 36,38,430/- The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the amount recovered was not adjudged through any proceedings. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal Revenue has preferred this appeal. 3. The grounds of appeal filed by Revenue as follows:- (A) The refund claim was allowed without scrutiny of documents. (B) Unjust Enrichment was not examined. (C) Interest liability was to be treated as arrears or confirmed demand and no separate Show Cause Notice was necessary for recovery of such interest. (D) Original refund claim sanction order issued in pursuance to Commissioner (Appeals) Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /06/2017 in Appeal No. E/3866/2012 decided the appeal filed by Revenue against the said Order-in-Appeal No. 379-381-CE/LKO/2012 dated 27/08/2012 and appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed and said Order-in-Appeal dated 27/08/2012 was affirmed. He has, further, contended that the question of unjust enrichment was not raised before the First Appellate Authority after issue of Order-in-Original dated 18/03/2013 and therefore, that issue has been finalized by issue of impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 02/09/2014 and therefore, the same cannot be raised at this stage. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find force in the arguments putforth by the Counsel of respondent. Therefore, we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
