TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Central Excise Commissioner's Appeal due to Previous Tribunal Ruling</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Versus M/s. Parner SSK Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Versus M/s. Parner SSK Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:1. Refund claim rejection by Asstt. Commissioner2. Appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)3. Sanction of refund claim by Asstt. Commissioner4. Review of Order-in-Original by Commissioner of Central Excise5. Departmental appeal against Order-in-Original6. Rejection of departmental appeal by Commissioner (Appeals)7. Present appeal by Commissioner of Central Excise8. Tribunal's decision on the first Order-in-Appeal9. Infructuous nature of present appealAnalysis:1. The respondent filed a refund claim which was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Aurangabad. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to the sanctioning of the refund claim by the Asstt. Commissioner through an Order-in-Original.2. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad reviewed the Order-in-Original, prompting the department to file an appeal against it before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the departmental appeal, which resulted in the present appeal being filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad against this decision.3. The Tribunal had previously decided an appeal related to the first Order-in-Appeal and sent the case back to the original authority for further consideration. The respondent's counsel argued that since the first Order-in-Appeal had been set aside by the Tribunal, the present appeal had become infructuous. The ld.JDR also agreed with this view.4. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous in light of the Tribunal's previous order, requiring the original authority to re-examine the bar of unjust enrichment after providing the party with a fair opportunity to be heard. The case was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 