TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dt. 24/08/2016 and there was no justification in issuing the corrigendum deleting the interest relief to the appellant. Therefore, the corrigendum dt. 17/01/2017 issued by the Commissioner(Appeals) is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20527/2017-SM, ST/20528/2017-SM, ST/20529/2017-SM, ST/20531/2017-SM, ST/20532/2017-SM & ST/20533/2017-SM - 22626-22631/2017 - Dated:- 25-10-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Akbar Basha, Chartered Accountant Hiragange Associates For the Appellant Smt. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG The appellant has filed these six appeals against the common impugned order dt. 24/08/2016 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f verification of quantum of rebate sanctioned to the appellant. The appellant is directed to produce documents to establish that the Cenvat credit was utilised for payment of service tax on service exported. Interest will also be paid in accordance with law. I direct the adjudicating authority to pass an order within 3 months from the receipt of this order. However vide corrigendum dt. 17/01/2017 issueed in respect of the Order-in-Appeal No. COC-EXCUS-000-APP-310-315-16-17 dt. 24/08/2016 wherein the order portion in page 9 of the above order was amended to read as follows:- I remand back to the adjudicating authority officer as per Section 85(4) of Finance Act, for the limited purpose of verification of quantum of rebate sanctioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that the Commissioner(Appeals) vide her order dt. 24/08/2016 has allowed the rebate along with interest and for quantification, she has remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority as per Section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994. Thereafter after three months, the Commissioner(Appeals) on her own has issued a corrigendum whereby she has deleted the interest granted by the earlier order without any basis and without any application made by any party. The learned consultant also relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. Vs. UOI [2011(273) ELT 3 (SC)] wherein it has been held as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
