TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back for deciding the said claims. Commissioner appeal has already set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and therefore no order exists in r/o the rebate claim of ₹ 2587266. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - F.No. 195/32/12-RA - 149/14-cx - Dated:- 15-4-2014 - SHRI D.P. SINGH, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER This revision application is filed by the applicant M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Glenmark House, B.D. Sawant Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai against the Order-in-Appeal No. US/364/RGD/2011 dated 21-10-2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Raigad with respect to Order-in Original dated 28-10-2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, (Rebate), Raigad Commissionerate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of appeal, two refund orders were made by the assistant Commissioner wherein the rebate claims amounting to ₹ 20,16,637/- ₹ 570629/- were sanctioned vide Order-in-Original No. 1474/10-11-AC (Rebate)/Raigad dated 29-12-2010 and Order-in-Original No. 1545/10-11-AC (Rebate)/Raigad. Accordingly, applicants requested the Commissioner (Appeals) during personal hearing dated 06-06-2011 to grant the refund claim by reducing the amount of ₹ 25,87,266/- as already sanctioned to them. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner also had preferred one appeal with Commissioner (Appeals) for the reason that why the refund claim as sanctioned to the applicants should not be rejected for the reason that the Assistant Commissioner who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und. 4.3 The reason for preferring the appeal with your office is due to sequence of events that were developed later on due to appeal preferred by the assistant Commissioner and the said appeal was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the Order-in-Appeal dated 11-11-2011. 4.4 Also, it should be pertinent to note that the Commissioner (Appeals) while accepting the submissions of the applicants by granting refund claim for ₹ 63,13,355/- had erred in by not granting interest as applicable for the delay in refund of duty, including on the amount of ₹ 25,87,266/- as granted earlier by the Assistant Commissioner but without payment of interest at applicable rate 19. The Applicants therefore, humbly request to grant ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sanctioned by ACCE in subsequent order. It is a settled legal position that an authority after passing the order become functus officio and cannot revise its own order. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred is not passing any order with respect to said claims. This legal infirmity is required to be rectified to meet the ends of justice. Therefore case is required to be remanded back for deciding the said claims. Commissioner appeal has already set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and therefore no order exists in r/o the rebate claim of ₹ 2587266. 9. In view of above position, Government modifies the said Order-in-Appeal and directs the original authority to consider the said rebate claims for sanction in accordance with impugned O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
