9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authority had not examined the merits of the appeal filed before him. It is also noted that the original authority had not held the claim to be barred by limitation of time but had rejected it on the premise that the dispute settled by the decision of the Kolkata bench of the Tribunal would not yield consequential relief to the appellant registered separately in the Mumbai jurisdiction. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for refund of duties of central excise that had been recovered consequent upon proceedings for enhancement of assessable value in accordance with rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The appellant had sought refund of ₹ 1,31,14,890 for the period between May 2002 and August 2004 which was rejected by the original authority as the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal before us. 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for appellant informs us that the appellant had been discharging its tax liability based on cost of production without adding the notional fixed percentage of profit as stipulated in rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 for the period prior to May 2002 and for the period after March 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Zone I, referred the matter to the Hon ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench as the decision of the Kolkata bench, that had been relied upon for filing this refund claim as well as by the adjudicating authority for dropping proceedings in relation to the demand after March 2007, were found to be based on certain assumptions that are erroneous. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valid grounds for setting aside the order. 5. The appellant has produced the challans pertaining to discharge of duty liability on which protest has been clearly noted. There can, thus, be no doubt that the claim was not barred by limitation of time. In the absence of a consideration of the merit in the appeal, we are bereft of substance to consider in the appeal. This must be rectified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
