TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er holds good and the adjudicating authority is required to follow the judicial discipline and should sanction the refund claim to the respondent and not to credit to consumer welfare fund. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/30566/2018 - A/31491/2018 - Dated:- 28-11-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent for the Appellant. Shri R. Muralidhar, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. HYDEXCUS- MD-AP2-0252-17-18-CE dated 19.02.2018. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent into the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adison Company Ltd (supra) and held that it may not be applicable in the facts of this case. 4. Learned departmental representative after giving overall picture of the issue involved, submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adison Company Ltd is directly on the point; that it is not in dispute that respondent had issued credit notes subsequent to the clearances effected by them and also not in dispute that the provisional assessments were finalised which resulted in excess payment. Further, he submits that the Apex Court in the case of Adison Company Ltd specifically stated that there has to be an evidence to show that buyer of the goods has not been passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh but were withdrawn on the ground of monetary limit. It is his submission that as on date, the Tribunal s order granting them consequential relief holds field and is not set aside and hence the first appellate authority is correct in coming to such a conclusion. 6. On consideration of the submissions made, I do find that the first appellate authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the respondent herein is eligible for the refund of the amount claimed by them as a consequential relief. 7. The facts of the case are not disputed as reproduced in Paragraph 3 (herein above). 8. On perusal of the records, it is seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of judicial discipline, is legally unsustainable. (emphasis supplied) 9. Since the refund claim filed by the respondent in this case has arisen out of the consequential relief granted by the Tribunal by order dated 04.05.2016, and that the said order holding the field are not set aside, and that appeals were filed were withdrawn would mean that the Tribunal s order holds good and the adjudicating authority is required to follow the judicial discipline and should sanction the refund claim to the respondent and not to credit to consumer welfare fund. I find that first appellate authority was correct in setting aside the Order-in-Original and I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
