9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, Revenue has filed the appeal under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the said appeal was entertained and disposed of by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) under such statutory provisions. Since, the impugned order was passed under a statute which does not deal with the subject issue, the submissions made by the learned Consultant for the appellant merit consideration for the purpose of maintainability of such appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal in the case COMMISSIONER OF C. EXCISE CUS., VAPI VERSUS GUARDIAN PLASTICOTE LTD. [ 2010 (6) TMI 472 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] has held that appeal filed under Service Tax statute in respect of the Central Excise matter is not maintainable and accordingly, rejected the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 195/- made at the time of filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The learned Consultant appearing for the appellant, at the outset, raised the preliminary objection that the impugned order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not maintainable inasmuch as the said order was passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act 1994, instead of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this context, the learned Consultant submitted that the issue involved in this case pertains to refund of cenvat amount by the appellant in the capacity of a manufacturer and as such, Revenue was required to file appeal before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in Form E.A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vishnu Electronics [2010 (249) ELT 378 (Tri-Chennai)]37-39 vi. CC(P) Kikata Vs. Goel Airshrienk (I) Ltd. [2007 (219) ELT 556 (Tri-Kolkata)] vii. Laxmi Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur 2017 (52) S.T.R. 386 (Tri.-All.) 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the Department in this case has issued the show cause notices dated 06.07.2015 and 02.09.2015, seeking recovery of the inadmissible Cenvat Credit under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the provisions of Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said show cause notices were adjudicated upon by the learned Original Authority vide order dated 05.10.2017, in sanctioning the refund in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of M/s. Guardian Plasticote Limited, who are respondents in two appeals today also, vide Order No. A/463/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 7-5-2010 [2010 (19) STR 447 (Tribunal)]. In that case, the Tribunal had decided that appeal has to be rejected in view of the fact that appeal has been filed in form meant for service tax appeal and in respect of a manufacturer who had availed cenvat credit and it should have been filed under Central Excise Act and during the relevant time there was no Commissionerate at Valsad at all. Since in all these four cases also, there was no Commissionerate at Valsad during the relevant time and the appeals have been filed in the form of ST-7 and hence also not maintainable in the law. Accordingly, all the appeals fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
