9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008. The adjudicating authority denied the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal dated 19/2010-CE dated 19.03.2010 allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The Revenue filed appeal against the said Commissioner (Appeals) order. This Tribunal vide in Final Order No. 348/2011 dated 22.02.2011 had allowed the Revenues appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and restored the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal, the appellants have received the refund consequent to the Order of the Commissioner (Appeal). The department issued show cause notice dated 06.07.2010 demanding erroneous refund and the same was confirmed by the Asst. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent to the Order-in-Appeal dated 19.03.10 on the erroneous sanction of the refund. This Tribunal has ordered for pre-deposit of entire duty vide Miscellaneous Order No. 40729/2013 dated 15.03.2013. The appellants have complied the Stay order dated 26.04.2013. On appeal by Revenue this Tribunal in Final Order dated 22.02.11 has allowed Revenue appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 19.03.2010 and restored the Order-in-Original. The relevant portion of the Tribunals order is reproduced as under:- 6.4 Coming to the facts of the present case, as already noted, the respondents raised invoices indicting higher rate of duty and collected the same from their customers. The payment of excise duty is not even linked to recovery of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is restored. Considering the above order that this Tribunal has already decided settled the issue in favour of Revenue and held that the appellants are not eligible for refund on account of unjust enrichment and set aside the order of the Commissioner (A) and restored the adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected their appeal by relying this Tribunals above Final order. Though the appellants have filed CMA No. 1929/2011, which is pending before the Honble High Court, there is no stay against the final order of the Tribunal. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the appellants appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. (Order pronounced and dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
