9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/2017, wherein, this Bench had remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority, to reconsider the issue afresh including the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Kochi - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 706 (Ker.). Thereafter, the adjudicating authority reconsidered the refund claim of the appellant afresh and after recording his satisfaction as to the appellant's claim being within the period of limitation, has recorded the finding as under: "8......The Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Paragraph 5.3 of the Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions, 2005 has clarified that "No refund/rebate claim should be withheld on the ground that an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peaking" and thus sought for setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original (refund). The assessee also filed its cross-objections supporting the sanction order of refund. After hearing both the parties, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal has allowed the Revenue's appeal and thereby set aside the sanction order on the ground that the same Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Southern Surface Finishers Vs. Asstt. Commr. of C. Ex., Muvattupuzha - 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 202 (Ker.) has held that the decision in M/s. Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. (supra) was not a good law. It is relevant here to note that the remand order by this Bench was an open remand, with a direction to consider the applicability of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held as under: ".....14. Considering 11B of the Act, 1944, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V. KVR Construction (supra), has held thus: "18. From the reading of the above Section, it refers to claim for refund of duty of excise only, it does not refer to any other amounts collected without authority of law. In the case on hand, admittedly, the amount sought for as refund was the amount paid under mistaken notion which even according to the department was not liable to be paid." It has been thus observed that what one has to see is whether the amount paid by the assessee under a mistaken notion was refundable. Mere payment made by the assessee will neither validate the nature of paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
