TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Tribunal by filing three appeals and all the three appeals of the Revenue were dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 8.10.2015. Further, the Revenue has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 8.10.2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is still pending. Since the issue involved in the present appeal is yet to attain finality and is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as stated by both the sides, therefore, it was premature for the original authority to proceed with the matter and decide the refund claim of the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20331/2015-SM - 21058/2017 - Dated:- 12-7-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. N. Anand, Advocate - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim on various grounds. The appellant filed reply to the show-cause notices and after following the due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund in toto. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed three appeals before the Commissioner (A) and the learned Commissioner (A) vide order dated 4.7.2012 allowed the appeal of the appellant and held that the appellants are eligible for sanction of refund, however, he has left it to the original authority for quantification of the claim to correctly arrive at the claim amount under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 and the Notification issued thereunder. In pursuance of the said order dated 4.7.2012, appellants were once again h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no occasion for the Assistant Commissioner to proceed further in the matter for quantification. He further submitted that the quantification aspect was also raised by the Revenue in those appeals filed before the Tribunal which were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 8.10.2015 and the learned counsel brought on record the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Revenue in those cases. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that when Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and the matter is still pending, then it was not necessary or for the adjudicating authority to proceed with the matter until the case is finally decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is still pending. Since the issue involved in the present appeal is yet to attain finality and is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as stated by both the sides, therefore, it was premature for the original authority to proceed with the matter and decide the refund claim of the appellant. I also find that it was not expected from the Commissioner (A) also to decide the appeal once the whole issue is pending before the Hon'ble High Court where the Revenue has approached against the decision of the Tribunal. In view of these facts, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
