Jurisdictional basis for refund orders failed when delegation under section 12E was not recorded, leading to remand.

Refund orders passed by an Additional Commissioner were held unsustainable where they did not record that the officer was exercising powers under section 12E of the Central Excise Act. The statutory refund function lay with the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, and the absence of a clear invocation of delegated or subordinate-officer powers meant the orders lacked a proper jurisdictional basis. Because the appellate authority had not examined the refund claims on merits under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT), the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by the competent authority after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund orders passed by the Additional Commissioner without recording exercise of powers under section 12E of the Central Excise Act were sustainable, and whether the matter should be decided on merits or remanded.

Analysis: The refund power under the statutory scheme rested with the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Although section 12E permits a Central Excise officer to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of a subordinate officer, the impugned orders did not state that they were passed in exercise of that power. On that basis, the orders-in-original were held unsustainable. Since the appellate authority had not examined the merits of the refund claims under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT), the proper course was to remand the matter for fresh decision by the competent authority after hearing the appellant.

Conclusion: The refund orders were invalid for want of jurisdictional basis, and the refund claims were remanded for fresh adjudication on merits by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.

---