9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted forthwith - The respondent Commissioner shall file the compliance report before this Tribunal and/or progress report otherwise, in the month of January, 2019 on or before 31.01.2019. - Ex. Misc. 50517/2018 in Ex. Appeal No. 51143 of 2017 - Interim Order No. 69/2018 - Dated:- 13-9-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Sh. B. L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the appellant Sh. S. K. Bansal, AR for the Respondent ORDER This miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant/ assessee for compliance of Final Order No. 57983/2017 dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal vide its common Final Order No. A/52510 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd pending investigation relating to cenvat credit of ₹ 4.37 crores against nickel carried by Anti Evasion Branch of Central Excise, C.R. Building, New Delhi , as the re-adjudication proceedings are pending the refund is pre-mature. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Tribunal in Ex. Appeal No. 51143/2017 and with a Final Order No. 57983/2017 dated 15.11.2017 this Tribunal taking note of earlier Final order allowing the appeal by way of remand and further taking notice of the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Anita Exports A partnership firm 1 vs. Union of India 2 2015-TIOL-2293-HC-AHM-CUS wherein it has been held that the pre-deposit has been refunded to the assessee in case the appeal is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that they did not hear from the respondent- department for adjudication of the matter even after about 5 months of passing of the Hon ble CESTAT s order in pursuance of the Final Order dated 15.11.2017. Further, they stated that they have filed an application dated 25.04.2018 for granting of the refund along with release of the bond and bank guarantee, and the application dated 26.04.2018 was returned back to them stating that the matter is still pending with the Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak, for denovo adjudication and they were required to approach the Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak, for refund. 8. This matter was earlier heard on 14.08.2018 and we called for report from the concerned Commissioner. The report of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Mandoli Division under GST Delhi East Commissionerate and M/s JSL were registered with Hissar Division under GST Rohtak Commissionerate, this office sought guidance from the Chief Commissioner s office as to whether the directions contained in the Order No. 04/2017 dated 16.06.2017 may be complied with. iii. Vide letter C. No. IV(16)660/JV Indus/ Samiksha/GST-East/2017 dated 21.02.2018, the Review Branch informed that the CESTAT Final Order No. A/57983/2017-EX(DB) dated 15.11.2017 i.r.o. M/s J. V. Industries Pvt. Ltd. had been accepted by the competent authority. Vide the FO dated 15.11.2017 referred above, the CESTAT directed the adjudicating authority to decide /pass the original order as per the directions of the Tribunal within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCNS so as to eliminate the possibility of the matter being taken up simultaneously by the Rohtak Commissionerate for adjudication. Further, they also provided a tentative list of the persons for the purpose of cross examination. vii. This office, vide letter C. No. CE-15/Adj/D-II/469/JV/08 dated 06.08.2018, had requested the party to submit a final list of the witnesses along with the detailed reason for cross-examination of each of the witnesses clearly, to which no reply has been received till date . 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee does not dispute the factual position stated in the aforementioned report of the respondent Commissioner. 10. Ld. Counsel explains that when he approached the office of the respondent Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be returned back. The applicant / appellant further approached the office of the Asst. Commissioner by their letter dated 11.05.2018 received in the office of the respondent on 14.05.2018, wherein the applicant categorically stated that they did not hear from the respondent- department for adjudication of the matter even after about 5 months of passing of the Hon ble CESTAT s order, in pursuance of the Final Order dated 15.11.2017. Further, they stated that they have filed an application dated 25.04.2018 for granting of the refund along with release of the bond and bank guarantee, and the application dated 26.04.2018 was returned back to them stating that the matter is still pending with the Commissioner for denovo adjudication and they we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
