https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48123 The Tribunal's disposal of the revenue appeals was set aside because the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity and the appeals required reconsideration on merits. The High Court rejected the argument that the refund objection was absent from the notice, noting that the corrigendum expressly referred to rejection of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 where drawback or rebate had been availed. However, the Court accepted that the Tribunal had decided the matter without fully examining the merits, including the propriety of the earlier adjudication order, and remanded the appeals for fresh decision after hearing both sides. en-us Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48123 The Tribunal's disposal of the revenue appeals was set aside because the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity and the appeals required reconsideration on merits. The High Court rejected the argument that the refund objection was absent from the notice, noting that the corrigendum expressly referred to rejection of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 where drawback or rebate had been availed. However, the Court accepted that the Tribunal had decided the matter without fully examining the merits, including the propriety of the earlier adjudication order, and remanded the appeals for fresh decision after hearing both sides. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48123