9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted all 144 AR3As. Therefore, there are no lapse on part of the appellant. It appears from the order that the cognizance of letter dated 20.04.2011 was not taken by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the matter needs to be re considered taking into consideration that the appellant have submitted all the 144 AR3As. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. - Excise Appeal No. 11133 of 2013-DB - Final Order No.A/10221/2023 - Dated:- 7-2-2023 - Hon'ble Member (Judicial), Mr. Ramesh Nair And Hon'ble Member (Technical), Mr. Raju For the Appellant : Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. Vijay G. Iyengar, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Deputy Commissioner passed order in original dated 10.07.2000, contending inter alia that order dated 30.11.1995, had become final and the appellant is not eligible for refund on appeal against the aforesaid order dated 10.07.2000, the Commissioner(Appeals) passed order dated 15.02.2001, and upheld the verdict that the earlier order in original dated 30.11.1995 has became final and no refund is grantable. The appellant s appeal before the tribunal came to be rejected on the ground that the order dated 30.11.1995, had attained finality. The appellant then approached the High Court of Gujarat vide SCA dated 14.06.2006. The Hon ble high Court vide it s order dated 26.09.2008, was pleased to set aside the CESTAT s order and sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /166 dated 20.04.2011. Therefore, there was no reason to reject the refund claim of Rs. 80,70,026/-. Without prejudice to his above submission, he further submits that when remission of duty for special industrial purpose, exempts the consignee, who is L-6 license holder, the concessional rate of duty cannot be denied to the manufacturer because of non-endorsement in AR3As form of actual receipt of material at beneficiary s end. In such a case, the duty liability falls on the beneficiary consignee and not on manufacturer from whom the concessional rated material was obtained by the consignee, i.e licence holder. In this context, he placed reliance on the following judgments: 1992 (62) ELT 807 (T ) CCE Vs. Fenner India limited 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the 144 AR3As. Therefore, there seems to be no reason on the partly refund is denied out of the total AR3As. Moreover, the appellant much before the passing of the adjudication order vide their letter dated 20.04.2011, brought to the knowledge of the commissioner referring their refund application that they had submitted all 144 AR3As along with the refund application. The said letter is scanned below: From the above letter also it is clear that there is no dispute that the appellant had submitted all 144 AR3As. Therefore, we do not find any lapse on part of the appellant. It appears from the order that the cognizance of letter dated 20.04.2011 was not taken by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, we are of the view that the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
