9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. Since the issue is pending before the Revisionary Authority, it was incumbent on the original authority not to adjudicate the protective notices issued by them and should have waited till the decision of the Revisionary Authority. Matter remanded to the original authority with a direction to keep the whole matter in abeyance till the decision of the Revisionary Authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Central Excise Appeal No. 20432 - 20435 of 2020 - Final Order Nos. 20835-20838/2020 - Dated:- 11-12-2020 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Sundar Raman, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. C.V. Savitha, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Appellants have filed these four appeals against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27/10/2017 b) ₹ 1,24,82,191/- in cash and ₹ 19,04,322/- as Cenvat Credit vide O-I-O No. 18/2017 (R) dated 26/10/2017 c) ₹ 1,23,050/- in cash and ₹ 24,539/- as Cenvat Credit vide O-I-O No. 24/2017 (R) dated 11/10/2017 d) ₹ 6,50,216/- in cash and ₹ 1,31,979/- as Cenvat credit vide O-I-O No. 35/2017 (R) dated 20/10/2017 2.2. Thereafter the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner has examined Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and allowed the entire rebate claimed by the respondent in cash vide O-I-O No. 19/18/24/35/2017 dated 27 26.10.2017/10.11.2017 and 20.12.2017. Aggrieved with the O-I-O s, the Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original No. Dt. Amount Confirmed 1 C.No. V/82/15/55/2018 dated 22.03.2018 O-I-O Sl. No. 27/2018 dt. 31/10/2018 ₹ 7,23,824/- 2 C.No. V/82/15/52/2018 dated 22/23.03.2018 O-I-O Sl. No. 28/2018 dt. 31/10/2018 ₹ 19,04,322/- 3 C.No. V/82/15/51/2018 dated 20/03/2018 O-I-O Sl. No. 29/2018 dt. 31/10/2018 ₹ 24,539/- 4 C.No. V/82/15/59/2018 dated 28/03/2018 O-I-O Sl. No. 30/2018 dt. 31/10/2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n end as he has accomplished the task of adjudicating the case. As a concept functus officio is bound with the doctrine of res-judicata which prevents the re-opening of a matter before the same Court or authority, in the circumstances the order of the Assistant Commissioner and re-confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is totally unwarranted as the said order of the Commissioner reaches the finality when accepted in Review by the Department. He also submitted that when the very issue having been opened and pending before the Revisionary Authority and further issuing the show-cause notice on the same issue amounts to double jeopardy which is inadmissible in law. He also submitted that when the appeal or the revision application is fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
