TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Y. Prakash For the Respondent : Mr. R. Murugappan, SCGC JUDGMENT ( Delivered by S. Manikumar, J) Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order, dated 05.02.2015, passed in W.P.(MD)NO.1409 of 2015, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant praying to quash the Order in Original No.03/CE/COMMR/2014, dated 21.11.2014, passed by the 3rd respondent. 2. While entertaining the writ appeal, this Court passed the following order, dated 13.02.2015, in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.A.(MD)No.82 of 2015. This petition has been filed under Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of stay of operation of the order in Original No.03/CE/COMM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 265 of the Constitution of India. 4. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it has been admitted that the aforesaid amount was received by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi, from the petitioner/appellant, though he was not bound to pay the amount. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent, who is entitled/empowered to get tax, demanded payment of duty, for which the petitioner/appellant submitted that the amount already collected by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi, of the very same Department, Government of India, be adjusted towards the payment to be made to the 3rd respondent. However, it was replied that the amount already wrongly received by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi, would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p for hearing, on the basis of the Clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, in F.No.71/4/2012/CX.1, dated 14.07.2015, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant submitted that the order in original does not survive. Whereas, Mr.R.Aravindan, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, insisted that an appeal ought to have filed against the order in original. 4. In view of the Clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, in Circular No.F.No.71/4/2012/CX.1, dated 14.07.2015, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Revenue. Hence, the impugned order in Original No. 03/CE/COMMR/2014, dated 21.11.2014, are set aside. It is left to the Revenue to proceed further, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
