9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 04.09.2004. This withdrawal prompted the supplier to charge Excise Duty on the supplies. Here, the supplier is not a private party, but a Public Sector Undertaking. The certificate issued by the said supplier, clearly indicated that the product supplied by them to the appellant was duty paid. The appellant has also placed on record the certificate issued by the manufacturer namely, M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a group company of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., wherein also they have certified that the product was dispatched to the supplier namely, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on payment of Central Excise Duty plus Educational Cess - When these documents along with other documents were made available, the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II): C.G.S.T. and Central Excise, Chennai. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is: whether the First Appellate Authority was correct in confirming the rejection of refund as made by the Adjudicating Authority? 3.1 Smt. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, would inter alia submit that in the first round of litigation before this forum, this Bench had remanded the matter for fresh decision; that consequently, a de novo Order-in-Original was passed wherein, again, the rejection of refund claim was made, against which an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Chennai, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 75/2020 (CTA-II) dated 31.07.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. confirming that they have charged Excise Duty on the supply of High Speed Diesel made to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. But however, both the authorities below have not given any finding on those documents which, according to the Learned Advocate for the appellant, would establish the payment of duty by the appellant, indirectly, that is to say the recipient has acknowledged the receipt of duty by the appellant. She would thus submit that the authorities below have seriously misdirected themselves by not appreciating the evidentiary value of the documents and hence, the rejection of the refund claim is improper. 4. Per contra, Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Learned Superintendent appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that no such documents as directed by the First Appellate Authority were made available to substantiate the duty payment. This, according to me, is illogical since the recipient, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, has itself issued a certificate clearly reflecting the payment of Central Excise Duty, which is not disputed by the Revenue. Surprisingly, there is no discussion in both the orders of the First Appellate Authority as well as the Adjudicating Authority as to the contents and relevancy of those documents, which only defeats the purpose of furnishing documents. 8. Admittedly, the appellant had claimed refund for the period from September 2004 to April 2007 and since then, the appellant has not been given sustainable reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
