9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of tableware and kitchenware. The issue of classification of the products manufactured by them was under dispute during the year 1994 and therefore the appellant paid the duty of Rs. 12,00,156/- for the period April 1994 to July 1994. Thereafter they filed a refund claim of the duty paid under protest. The original authority sanctioned the refund vide Order-in-Original No.110/CE dt. 10/11/1995. The amount sanctioned was ordered to be credited to consumer welfare fund as per the Section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant filed appeal against the said order before the Commissioner(Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original authority after considering the directions of the Tribunal has passed the order dt. 21/08/2006. The original authority has also considered the certificate produced by the Chartered Accountant. She further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to remand the matter back to the original authority. She further submitted that the appellate authority has wrongly understood the order of the Tribunal whereas the adjudicating authority has rightly understood and examined the facts and documents produced. She further submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order as it does not state reasons for the decisions. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relied upon the following decisions in support of his findings. i. Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [1994(71) ELT 989 (Tri.)] ii. S. Kumar [2004(164) ELT 34 (Tri. LB)] 7. We also find that the Commissioner(Appeals) has not passed any order against the appellant and he has only remanded the case back to the original authority with the direction to examine the evidences as per the directions of the Tribunal. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of remand. Further we also hold that the Commissioner(Appeals) has the power of remand which is now well settled by catena of judgments of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
