TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso on the aspect of eligibility of refund claim by the Appellant. Both sides agree that all the documents/evidences need to be scrutinized along with other evidences that would be produced in support of the claim. - Impugned order set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Ex. Appeal No. 610/12 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2015 - D M Misra, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri D Jha, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri A Roy, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per: D M Misra: This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.107/JSR/2012 dated 26.07.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ranchi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave categorically stated that the amount of ₹ 48,49,161.38 mentioned in the supplementary invoices, had not been paid by M/s Tata Motors Ltd., which includes refund claim amounting to ₹ 3,28,136/-. He submits that even though initially M/s Tata Motors, had availed cenvat credit against the said supplementary invoice No.22473 dated 07.01.2010, but later reversed the cenvat credit by debiting their RG-23A Part II Account vide Entry No.731 dated 11.03.2010. In support, he has placed a copy of the letter bearing No.FIN/X/48/362 dated February 01, 2013, issued by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. 3. The ld. A. R. appearing for the Revenue, has submitted that both the authorities below had rejected the refund claim on merit as well as on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agree that all the documents/evidences need to be scrutinized along with other evidences that would be produced in support of the claim. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to remit the case to the adjudicating authority for verification of documents now produced before this Tribunal and also the evidences that would be produced so as to ascertain whether the Appellants are eligible to the refund claim on account of incorrect application of the Price Escalation Clause in question i.e. from 01.07.2009 instead of 01.01.2009 and also whether the burden of duty has been passed on to the customer or otherwise. Consequently, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the original adjudicating authority for deciding the issue afr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
