9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord revealed inter alia that they have paid an amount of 6% of the assessable value; that the goods were exempted from Customs Duty which were supplied against international competitive bidding as per Notification No. 12/2012-CE; that there being no requirement to pay the amount equal to 6% being paid in excess, was required to be refunded; that they had enclosed documents in support of their claim and that the refund amount claimed had not been charged/realized from any other person, etc. 1.2 A Show Cause Notice No. 01/2014 dated 28.08.2014 was issued thereafter and the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 01 (R)/2015 dated 04.02.2015 rejected the refund claim. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chenna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch in the case of Kriti Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore - 2017 (350) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. - LB) relied on by the assessee during the course of hearing. 3. The first Show Cause Notice came to be issued alleging that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of Notification No. 12/2012-CE which came to be adjudicated and rejected on the ground that the appellant was not eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE and that the refund claim at that stage was premature. The appellant in its first appeal was able to convince the Commissioner (Appeals) as to its satisfying the conditions of Notification No. 12/2012-CE who being satisfied, directed the sanction of refund subject to a condition that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he excess amount paid was unconstitutional which, according to me, is not acceptable since the constitutional validity can be gone into only by the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not by any other authority. 6. In the record of personal hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), a copy of which is placed on record, there is a recording as to the appellant submitting proof that they have not passed on the duty which is in tune with their submission in the application for refund, in Form-R which unfortunately, has again been ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. On an overall consideration right from the Form-R to the pleadings vis-à-vis the findings, I am of the view that the Revenue has time and again change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
