9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant Shri K. K. Banerjee, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary Briefly stated the facts of the case are that 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco and quiwam. There was a dispute in respect of payment of duty on valuation. The matter was settled in favour of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee submitted Refund claims of ₹ 3,97,590.00 and ₹ 11,42,912.00. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim of ₹ 397,590.00 and out of ₹ 11,42,912.00, sanctioned the refund claim of ₹ 190,500.00 and rejected the refund claim of ₹ 952,412.00. By the impugned Orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Orders and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.09.2006 on the ground of non-submission of proof that the burden of duty has not been passed on to the customers. (i) The appellant thereafter resubmitted the refund claim alongwith an affidavit affirming that the burden of duty was not passed on to the customers. It was inter alia stated in the said letter the question of passing on the incidence of duty could not arise since the amount of ₹ 3,97,590/- was paid twice, as observed by the Assistant Commissioner in his Order dated 10.05.2006. (j) On 11.01.2007, the matter was heard by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Muzaffarpur. At such hearing the appellant referred to the order No.12/Off/06 dated 10.05.2006. It was submitted that since the said amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity is illegal and incorrect. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Appellant will be entitled for refund, as per law. 5. The Learned A.R. for the Revenue submitted that in the earlier Order dated 25.02.2005, it was directed to examine as to whether the party had collected any amount in excess of duty assessed during the material period. On perusal of the earlier Order dated 10.05.2006, I find that the Assistant Commissioner ordered that the Respondent assessee is entitled for refund of duty of ₹ 3,97,590.00 and directed to file a refund claim. It is also observed that the amount of ₹ 3,97,590.00 as paid by the assessee is refundable. Hence, the department cannot take a different stand in subsequent proceeding. 6. Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d held that freight and transit insurance from the factory to the depot would only be includible. (g) After the said judgment was passed by the Supreme Court, the appellant filed an application for refund of an amount of ₹ 11,42,912/- (duty+Penalty) which was pre-deposited under TR-6 Challan No. 05 dated 10.04.1999. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 01.10.2003 had rejected an amount of ₹ 9,52,412/- deposited towards duties. He, however, sanctioned the balance amount of ₹ 1,90,500/- deposited towards penalty but adjusted against outstanding arrear amount towards service tax. (h) Against the said order dated 01.10.2003 of the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 08.03.2007 and rejected the refund of the said amount of ₹ 9,52,412/- although in his earlier order dated 31.02.2006 had held to be refundable and directed for fresh refund application. As regards, penalty, the amount of ₹ 1,90,500/- has been sanctioned and has been refunded. The Appellant contends that the Assistant Commissioner after passing the earlier order dated 31.03.2006 holding that the amount of ₹ 9,52,412/- was refundable and directed for making a fresh refund application, cannot thereafter decided the issue otherwise than refund of the said amount. It is a well settled legal principle that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order. This principle is laid down in (i) U. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
