9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent ORDER These ten appeals have been filed by the appellant directed against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund of Education Cess & Secondary High Education Cess on the basis of the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgments in the case of Unicorn Industries Vs. UOI reported in 2019 (370) ELT 3 (SC). Since the issue involved in all the appeals is identical therefore all the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. For the purpose of discussion, we may take the facts of Appeal no. E/60010/2022. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is having a unit in the state of J & K, are engaged in the manufacture of Insecticid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s & SHE Cess and value addition of the basic excise duty. 2.2 The adjudicating authority neither issued any show cause notice/afforded any opportunity of personal hearing nor sought any details/explanation and proceeded to reject part of the claim by adopting a short-cut method on the basis of the report of range officer, by ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Tribunal which attained finality so far as the appellant is concerned. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the adjudicating authority rejecting part of the refund claim, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and challenged only part of the order against the rejection of the claim but the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of deciding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submits that there was no justification for ordering the recovery of sanctioned claim by totally overlooking the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act which provides for recovery of refund sanctioned erroneously. 4.2 He further submits that any settled matter cannot be re-opened merely on the basis of another judgment pronounced at subsequent stage and any subsequent judgment cannot be taken as a basis to unsettle the settled law. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in passing the impugned order on the basis of subsequent judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ms. V.V.F Ltd. reported in 2020 (372) ELT 495 (S.C.) specially when the appellant was never the party in the said case. 5. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd reported in 2017 (355) ELT 481. Further, I find that the appellant was also a party before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. I also find that the review filed by the Department in SRD Nutrients Pvt Ltd. was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, I find that before the Commissioner (Appeals) appellant has challenged only part of the adjudication order withholding/rejecting part of the refund claim whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) not only rejected the pending refund claim itself rather ordered for recovery of amount of the already sanctioned claims without any authority of law. 7.2 Further, I find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
