2018 (7) TMI 1775 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – Principles of Natural Justice – Refund claim – Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – refund rejected on the ground of limitation – Held that:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on said submissions covered by para-9 of written submission filed before him. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered all submissions before him and given his decision on acceptance or rejection grounds raised before him – the impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consideration of said submissions under said para-9 and any other submission and give a reasoned order – appeal allowed by way of remand. – APPEAL No. E/70
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rom 2009-10 to 2013-14 (up to January, 2014). Covering the said period, the demand under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 was raised against the appellant which was challenged before the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad. Hon ble Allahabad has quashed the said show cause notice dated 25.04.2014 on 18.08.2015. The appellant claimed refund of said amount which was debited by appellant on their own account. The refund was rejected under limitation by the original authority. The Order of Original Authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the refund on limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant wh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
4. Heard the learned A.R. for revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on said submissions covered by para-9 of written submission filed before him. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered all submissions before him and given his decision on acceptance or rejection grounds raised before him. I, therefore, do not find impugned order to be sustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consideration of said submissions under said para-9 and any other submission and give a reasoned order. 6. Accordingly, the appeal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =