TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the subsequent development of passing the order of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner on 24.9.2003, Hyundai have continued parallel litigation in respect of the refund claims never disclosing the fact that the very same facts have already been considered and decided and had attained finality. These were totally new grounds whereas the Commissioner had rejected the claim on the ground that the respondent is not eligible for exemption; goods cannot be considered as exported and cannot be considered as non-excisable - Since classification and liability to Central Excise duty have attained finality, the refund claim has no merit - the refund claim also does not have any merit and has thus been correctly rejected by the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The refund claim of Rs.2,77,03,360/- was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original, dt.23.12.2003, whereas the refund claim of Rs.45,49,936/- was rejected under Order-in-Original, dt.07.04.2006, which is the subject matter of present appeal. The refund claim of Rs.2,77,03,360/- rejected under Order-in-Original, dt.23.12.2003 culminated into a Revenue s appeal which was decided by this Bench vide order dt.25.07.2012. In Paras 3 to 6 of the order dt.25.07.2012, following was held by this Bench on the same issue:- 3. Heard both sides in detail. After spending considerable time in hearing both the parties, it was found that the order in original referred to in Para -1 (vi), passed by jurisdictional Commissioner hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued to them and they had a right to file an appeal nor L T filed appeal. Under these circumstances, the classification of the goods and liability of the goods to Central Excise duty attained finality on 24.09.2003, the date on which both the show cause notices issued to the respondent and M/s. L T Limited were disposed of and decided. 5. The respondents, even though were fully aware of this situation and were aware of the decision of the Commissioner had not filed an appeal against that order, yet did not bring the order of the Commissioner to the notice of the Tribunal in two rounds of litigation, which resulted in remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) on two occasions. If the order of Commissioner and that it has atta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002. It has to be noted that Hyundai preferred refund claims on 05.7.2002 and 21.01.2003 and both of them were rejected on 23.12.2003 by which time show cause notice had already been issued proposing demand of Customs duty which was the claim of the Hyundai for claiming the refund. After the rejection of both the refund claims on 23.12.2003 and 07.4.2003 ignoring the subsequent development of passing the order of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner on 24.9.2003, Hyundai have continued parallel litigation in respect of the refund claims never disclosing the fact that the very same facts have already been considered and decided and had attained finality. 5. In fact, as reproduced in brief facts of the case above in Para 1 (x), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
