9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assailing the validity of the order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] on 24 March 2023. In terms of the said order, the CESTAT has principally upheld the validity of the Order-in-Original as affirmed by the Appellate Authority and found that the claim for refund as raised by the respondent had been correctly examined and granted. 2. The record would reflect that the issue of refund itself fell directly for consideration inter partes in W.P(C) No.7853/2017. While dealing with the objections raised with respect to limitation and other issues, the Court in the earlier writ petition rendered the following findings:- "12. There is no dispute about the applicability of SRF Ltd (supra); indeed the Revenue's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d application moved by the petitioner shall be decided on its merits, within ten weeks, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of." 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Department appellant is stated to have preferred a Special Leave Petition, namely SLP (Civil) No.15150/2019. Noting that no interim order operated thereon, the said Special Leave Petition came to be disposed of on 15 September 2023 in the following terms:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/Asessee jointly submitted that in the absence of there being any stay of the impugned order of the High Court, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, the order of remand has been given effect to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of 15 September 2023 has not interfered with the judgment handed down by this Court. Thus, issues which stand conclusively settled in terms thereof cannot be reopened. 6. In our considered opinion, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the contentions being left open to be agitated by parties on merits, can only be confined to an issue which did not stand concluded in terms of the judgment which was rendered on 06 August 2018. When we examine the order of the CESTAT in the aforesaid light, we find that no substantial question of law arises. 7. We note that insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, the CESTAT has rested its conclusions on the earlier judgment rendered by this Court on 06 August 2018. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
