9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal filed a refund claim which was sanctioned but thereafter a show cause notice dated 18.05.2017 was issued proposing to recover the erroneous refund of Rs. 15,45,000/-. The appellant paid the duty amouting to Rs. 46,97,000/- under protest by debiting the Cenvat credit account in order to avoid interest liability in future if the department succeeds before the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Subsequently, the department on 20.09.2018 withdrew its appeal on monetary grounds and the appellant after the withdrawal of the appeal by the department filed the refund claim which was rejected wrongly by both the authorities, by observing that the appellant had debited Cenvat credit account just to encash the same. Once, the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estinely without payment of duty. The Appellant had debited an amount of ₹15,45,000/- vide RG-23A Part-II vide entry No. 385 dated 18.09.2008 during the investigation stage. Thereafter, the said show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 19.09.2012 whereby demand of Rs. 46,96,664/- along with interest and penalty was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 19.09.2012 appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28.01.2015. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal against the Order-In-Appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal vide its final Order No. A/61227-61232/2016-SB(BR) dated 24.08.2016 and dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andi Gobindgarh, issued the show cause notice dated 15.07.2020 proposing to reject the refund. 4. The appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original rejected the entire refund claim. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed his appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana who vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2023 rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 6. Ld. Counsel submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that in this case demand of Rs. 46,96,664/- was raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot question the eligibility of Cenvat credit and if the department had any objection then they could have issued show cause notice seeking disallowance of cenvat credit but no notice was issued in this case, hence, the same cannot be disputed in refund proceedings. 8. Ld. Counsel further submits that once the appeal by the department has been withdrawn from the Hon ble High Court then the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality and thereafter the appellant should be paid back the amount to Rs. 46,96,664/- which is claimed by him in the present appeal. 9. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 10. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
