9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, they filed ten refund claims for the period 18.12.1980 to28.02.1983 for claiming refund of excise duty of Rs. 25,89,000.82 paid on the value of tin metal containers, which according to them were durable and returnable. 2. The Assistant Collector, while examining the refund claims found that some of the tin containers sent to the dealers were not returned whereas, the tin containers sent to the dealers in local area were returned. Accordingly, he passed Order-on-Original dated 06.05.1986 granting refund of Rs. 1,83,253.56, where the tin containers were actually returned to the assessee and rejected the balance of refund claim amounting to Rs. 24,05,747.26, wherever the tin containers were not returned by the buyers. 3. The said o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of all the above developments the appellants became entitled to the refund of the duty paid by them on the value of tin containers. As the refund was not being granted they addressed a letter dated 29.09.2008 requesting the Department to sanction the refund claims. As a result, the appellant was directed to furnish the related documents showing payment of duty on the tin containers. Subsequently, another SCN dated 12.11.2008 was issued to the appellant calling for vital documents so as to process their refund claim and to satisfy the eligibility and admissibility of the same. The SCN observed that in as much as the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the technical ground of the appeal having been filed without any specific authorization fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejecting the same on the ground of non-submission of documents. It is not disputed that the said refund claims were part of the first adjudication order by the original authority, which travelled right upto the Supreme Court. The Revenue's stand is that the earlier order of the Tribunal, which also stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the technical issue and not on merits and as such reopening of the case cannot be called to be contempt of Court. The subject matter of the earlier appeal was also the same very refund claims and as such whether the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal stands rejected on technical ground or on merits is irrelevant in as much as by rejection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
