TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favor of the assessee. - E/3745/2010 - A/61693/2016-SM[BR] - Dated:- 5-12-2016 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Satya Pal, A.R. for the Appellant Sh. Suvineet Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 325/BK/GGN/2010 dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s Saurer Embroidery System (India) Ltd. were registered with Central Excise for manufacture of embroidery falling under chapter 5805.19 which attracted central excise duty till 09.07.2004, after which date, the excise duty on the manufacturing activity was completely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) was further appealed in the Hon ble CESTAT, both by the department and by the party. The Hon ble CESTAT vide its final order no. 1730-1730/06 dt. 08.12.2006, decided both the appeals by upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the decision of Hon ble CESTAT, the respondent preferred appeal before Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana. 2.2 The case has finally been decided by the Hon ble High Court vide order dt. 26.09.2009 (CEA No. 54 of 2007). In its final order the High Court, besides other issues, has discussed the issue as to whether the Tribunal and the quasi judicial authorities were correct in ordering recovery of the Modvat Credit taken prior to the amendment to 96ZL, but utilized at a later date. To t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/- was also rejected on limitation. (ii) Refund of ₹ 25,38,903/- was rejected because central excise duty has been paid only once and no excess duty was paid. (iii) The refund was also rejected on the ground that it was not clear from the submission of the claimant under which provision of Central Excise Law, they had asked for refund of Modvat Credit of capital goods. (para 16.12 of Order-in-Original) 6. Adjudicating Authority has given no finding on the aspect of unjust enrichment. 7. From the order of the First Appellate Authority, it is evident that the grounds on which the refund was rejected have not been fully examined by the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority has examined the ground of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
