https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213849 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. en-us Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213849 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213849