TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal cannot be agitated before Government of India. This is clear violation of judicial principles and the applicant has misused the provisions of law by filing this revision application when their appeal is already rejected by Hon'ble CESTAT on merit. - Moreover issue involved in the case is of refund of unutilized cenvat credit which is not covered under section 35EE read with first proviso to section 35B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. So no revision application is maintainable before Central Government against impugned Order-in-appeal. - revision application stands dismissed as non-maintainable under section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Decided in favour of assessee. - F.No. 195/774/12-RA-Cx - .6/14 Cx - Dated:- 2-1-2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med credit availed in respect of exports and as per the declaration on the AR4 made by the applicants it appears that they have not availed credit in the first place for export clearances and hence there is no question of unutilized clearances. From the description of goods shown in the said AR4's it appears that the applicants has cleared 100% cotton for which they are eligible for deemed credit of 50% of the duty payable, but they have claimed 60% of the duty payable in their application. Lower authority vide above impugned order dated 04.10.99 has rejected the refund claim of ₹ 83,91,297/- 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicants filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. Against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which have been relied upon by the respondent-revenue, can have no play and cannot be applied. Such deemed Modvat credit is not equal to duty paid in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, such orders as passed by both the lower authorities disallowing the legitimate refund claim of the applicants, on the ground of contravention of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is illegal, unjust, unsustainable, bad in law against well settled law of the land also which ned to be set aside quashed. The applicants rely on the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, in an exact similar matter of Commissioner of Central Excise Surat-I Vs. Swagat Synthetics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the applicant filed appeal before CESTAT who rejected the same vide order dated 31.03.2006. Now the applicant has filed this Revision Application against same Order-in-Appeal after expiry of more than 12 years from date of receipt of impugned Order-in-Appeal. 8. Government observes that the applicants has initially preferred appeal before tribunal against impugned Order-in-Appeal. Tribunal rejected the appeal of applicant on merit vide order dated 31.03.2006 Order-in-Appeal cannot be agitated before Government of India. This is clear violation of judicial principles and the applicant has misused the provisions of law by filing this revision application when their appeal is already rejected by Hon'ble CESTAT on merit. Moreover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
