9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evi, C.S.] This appeal has a chequered history. The appellants had filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No. 05/2006 CE (N T) dated 14th March, 2016 for the period July 2007 to March 2008. 2. As per order in original No. 10-R/2009-S.Tax, dt 24.02.2009 the refund claims were rejected. The. appellant herein filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the department, thus rejecting the refund which allowed in denovo order. Vide separate Order in Appeal No. 2/2014, dated 08.01.2014, the appeal filed by appellant was also dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Meanwhile, the Tribunal heard the appeal No. ST/779/2009 filed by department and passed Final Order No. 20863/2014 dt 19.5.2014. 7. Against OIA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having observed that the Order in Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is irrelevant and incompetent proceedings, I accept the discussions and the judgement rendered in CESTAT Final Order No.20258/20157 dt 5.2.2015 and thereby set aside the Order in Appeal 2/2014. For better appreciation) the discussions of the Tribunal in Final Order No dt. 5.2.2015 are reproduced as under: "16 In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances, we quash the impugned order dated 26.03.2014 and the order-in-original No. 255/2013 (Group-IX REFUND (Denovo) dated 31.10.2013 as patently incompetent without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The appeal is allowed, but in totality of the circumstances, we pass no order to costs." In view thereof, the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. It is submitted by the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
