https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349648 The Commissioner (Appeals) was held to have power to remand a refund matter for re-quantification where the appellate statute authorises the authority to pass such orders as it thinks fit. The restriction in Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act was not treated as curtailing the remand power under Section 85(4) of the Finance Act in the service tax context. The refund claims concerned unutilised CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/06-CE(NT), and the remand was limited to quantification on the basis of records and certificates. The remand order was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:19:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349648 The Commissioner (Appeals) was held to have power to remand a refund matter for re-quantification where the appellate statute authorises the authority to pass such orders as it thinks fit. The restriction in Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act was not treated as curtailing the remand power under Section 85(4) of the Finance Act in the service tax context. The refund claims concerned unutilised CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/06-CE(NT), and the remand was limited to quantification on the basis of records and certificates. The remand order was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349648