9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant’s refund application in Form-R filed in 2014 having not been specifically found to be wrong and the Revenue having accepted the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be found to go beyond the directions therein and hence, the rejection of refund for any other ground is unsustainable being contrary to law. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.: E/41780/2018 - Final Order No. 42746/2018 - Dated:- 30-10-2018 - Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. J. Dhinakaran, General Manager (Taxation) for the Appellant Shri. R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant, a public sector undertaking of the Government of India, filed an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority in the first round of litigation and thereafter, passed a second Order-in-Original No. 03/2017-(R) dated 06.11.2017 alleging unjust enrichment without giving a finding on the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22.09.2016. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai, vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 189/2018 (CTA-I) dated 18.04.2018 has rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the excess amount paid by the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not unconstitutional. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Shri. J. Dhinakaran, General Manager (Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thereby, also sidelining the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) as to giving a finding on the fact of duty being passed on by the appellant to any other person. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass Order confirming its proposals carried out in the second Show Cause Notice without specifically negating the plea of the appellant that it had not passed on the burden of duty. 4.2 The adjudicating authority however, has extracted the applicable rules without justifying as to how the appellant s refund claim was hit by those rules. Moreover, if the Revenue had any doubts, nothing prevented it from carrying out a further investigation since the appellant was a public sector undertaking, more so when the applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
