9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese three appeals is identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. Particulars of the appeals are herein below:- Appeal No. Period of dispute Refund claimed Refund rejected ST/20012/2019 October 2015 to December 2015 Rs.20,90,711/- Rs.8,46,409/- ST/20013/2019 October 2013 to March 2014 Rs.25,78,024/- Rs.17,79,501/- ST/20014/2019 January 2016 to March 2016 Rs.12,91,405 Rs.5,76,792/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Micron Technology Inc. USA and is in the business of providing software development, research and development services to Micron Technology Inc. USA in the production of memory devices, storage and imaging conductor. Appellant entered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ples of natural justice. He further submitted that the impugned order has failed to even read the Order-in-Original passed on the appellant's facts let alone make any reference to the Order-in-Original or the facts of the appellant or the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. He further submitted that the Order-in-Original was passed as a speaking order sanctioning a part of the refund and rejecting a part of the refund. He further submitted that the impugned order discusses general principle pertaining to refund claim and related proceedings, the impugned order merely provides generic guidelines to the Department as to how to adjudicate refund matter. He further submitted that the Order-in-Original has also travelled beyond the allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Calcutta - 2004 178 ELT 1123 Cal. iv. Salem Textiles Limited Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 102 (Mad.). 4.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the appellant's own case for the earlier period, this Tribunal vide its Final Order No.21608-21609/2018 dt. 12/10/2018 allowed the appeal of the appellant and remanded the case back to the Commissioner(Appeals) to pass de novo order after considering the facts and the grounds of appeal and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 5. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
