TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the said Rules arrived at by the Commissioner of Central Excise - the matter may be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the all issues afresh in the light of the principles of law laid down on each aspect - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/616/2007 - ORDER No. A/10733 / 2017 - Dated:- 29-3-2017 - Dr D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Hon'ble Member (Technical) For Applicant : Shri P Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Shri N Satwani, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Dr D.M. Misra This appeal is filed against OIA-22/2007-AHD-III-CE/DK/COMR-A- dt 28/02/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) -AHMEDABAD-III. 2. Briefly stated the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount recovered from them as Excise Duty for the period April 1999 to March 2000 on the basis of determination of annual capacity of production at 2595 MTs is incorrect as the demand notices for the earlier period had been dropped by the Ld commissioner (Appeals). The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on various grounds viz., that the refund claim is barred by limitation, refund claim is filed without challenging the APC Order of the Commissioner, the appellant could not establish that the incidence of duty claimed as refund had not been passed on to their buyers etc.. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeal), who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod and sought to be applied for the subsequent period, therefore, the appellants are not eligible to the refund claim itself in view of the above judgments. He submits that their matter may be remanded the Adjudicating Authority for examination of the issue in detail. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the refund claim was filed consequent to the order of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) dt 20.1.2005 setting the demands for the earlier period observing that the APC determined as 971.40 MTs by applying Rule 3 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, is correct and not 2595 MTs as per Rule 5 of the said Rules arrived at by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Ld AR for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
