9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals), while confirming the rejection of refund order passed by the adjudicating authority, to the extent that Appellant had sought for refund by filing refund application dated 04.07.2018 on the basis of Order-in-Appeal dated 29.05.2017 that was set aside by this Tribunal on 05.12.2017 is not maintainable, appears to be rational and proper. Appeal dismissed. - Excise Appeal No. 87070 of 2019 - A/85903/2022 - Dated:- 26-9-2022 - HON BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Kunal R. Chaudhary, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER In this second round of litigation Appellant has assailed the order passed by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dication. In the meantime Appellant filed a refund application on dated 04.07.2018 seeking refund of the credits allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith its interest, together amounting to Rs.5,46,853.58/- but the said was refused by the refund sanctioning authority, whose order also received confirmation at the Commissioner of GST Central Excise (Appeals- Thane), Mumbai level. Appellant assailed the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present proceeding. 3. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Kunal R. Chaudhary submitted that they challenged the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on dated 29.05.2017 only to the extent of denial of the CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in the light of the precedent decisions, which the appellant may submit before the adjudicating authority. Inasmuch as the matter is being remanded, he would also examine the availability of credit for the period prior to 01.04.2011. 5. The operating portion of the order passed by this Tribunal on the earlier occasion clearly reveals that the entire Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to adjudicate on the point of limitation as well as availability of credit for the period prior to 01.04.2011 apart from examination of documents like filing of return, verification of entries in the CENVAT Credit accounts etc. This being facts on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
