9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent ORDER Appellants have files these two appeals against the common impugned order dated 19.12.2014 whereby the Commissioner (A) after considering all the submissions of the appellant has remanded the refund claims back to the original authority with direction to examine the entire claim afresh as per the directions given by him. The details of refund claim filed by the appellant are mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and also for non-production of certain documents / information. After following the due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants failed to submit the registration certificate and also did not file the relevant service tax returns. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who discussed the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is not sustainable in law. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that it has now been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court holding that even after the amendment to Section 35A of Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (A) has the power of remand and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order remanding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand and the Tribunal has also relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner vs. Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd.: 2009 (244) ELT 223. Therefore, by following the ratio of the above said decision, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld by dismissing both the appeals.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 29/06/2017.) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
