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>Appellate tribunal orders fresh review, stresses comprehensive decision-making, adherence to law, and natural justice.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa Versus Watson Pharma Pvt Ltd</h3> The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh consideration by the first appellate authority, emphasizing the need for a ... No-speaking order - refund - limitation - refund claim rejected based upon judicial pronouncements in the case of Swagat Synthetics and STI India Ltd [2008 (10) TMI 246 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE] - Held that: - the impugned orders of the first appellate authority are not speaking order having not recorded any reasoning for upholding the adjudication order. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of N/N. 5/2006-CE(NT) as amended as also the relevant case laws - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Need for a speaking order by the first appellate authority.Analysis:Refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:The appeals were directed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Goa, regarding the refund sanctioned to the respondent under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent filed the refund application for the duty paid on inputs used for manufacturing goods exported. The Revenue contended that the refund procedure is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the limitation period must be considered for refund claims. The respondent argued that Section 11B does not apply in this case as it involves a refund for duty paid on exported goods.Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:The issue revolved around whether the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the limitation period for refund claims, are applicable to the present case. The Departmental Representative cited a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in support of applying Section 11B. However, the respondent's counsel maintained that the lower authorities' orders were correct and that the time-limit issue did not arise as the refund was for duty paid on inputs used in exported goods.Need for a speaking order by the first appellate authority:Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was observed that the first appellate authority did not provide detailed findings on the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Instead, the authority relied on judicial pronouncements without analyzing the factual aspects of the refund claim. Consequently, the appellate tribunal concluded that the orders lacked reasoning and were not speaking orders. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue in light of relevant legal provisions and case laws, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and reasoned decision.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh consideration of the issue by the first appellate authority, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The cross-objections were also disposed of in the process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
