TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the respondent filed 4 refund claims in respect of SAD in terms of Notification 102/2007-Cus dated 14/07/2007 as detailed below:- Appeal No. dated 14/06/2012 Appeal No. dated 6/3/2012 Amount C//495/12-MUM C//496/12-MUM C//497/12-MUM C//498/12-MUM C/127/12-MUM C/189/12-MUM C/191/12-MUM C/190/12-MUM 17,580/- 18,735/- 27,058/- 9,391/- Total 72,674/- All four refund claims were sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Kalyan-II Division, Thane-I, vide four separate orders Nos. R1302/10-11, R1303/10-11, R1304/10-11, R1305/10-11 dated 30/12/2010. Aggrieved by the said order the Revenue filed one common appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who has rejected the same vide order in appeal N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue's four appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as not maintainable. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has given following findings. From the above, it is clear that Section 35 ibid provides for filling appeal to the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), against any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise officer lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise by virtue of application of Section 35(E)3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/256/ThI/2011 dated 16/11/2011 is an order which is passed by an officer under Section 35A(3) of the Act, who is not lower in the rank than the Commissioner(s) of Central Excise, being the one passed by the Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order in original, which is clear in impugned Order-in-Appeal itself, wherein it is recorded as under: The Revenue has preferred these four appeals against the Order-in-Original No. R1302/10-11,R1303/10-11, R1304/10-11, R1305/10-11 dated 30/12/2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Kalyan- IIDn., Thane-I Commissioner ate which already stood rejected vide an Order-in-Appeal No. YDB(256) Th.I/2011 dated 16/11/2011, on the ground that no separate appeals were field during the material period in respect of four individual impugned Order-in-Original, to be appealed against. He submits that since the Commissioner (Appeals) himself has mentioned in the Order-in-Appal that these appeals are against four Orders-in-Original date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011. Pursuance to the said direction the Revenue has filed four separate appeals. These four appeals were dismissed on the ground that there is no power vested to the Commissioner (Appeals) to review his own order considering that the Revenue has filed four separate appeals against Orders-in-Original and not against order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue has followed the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) and filed four appeals. It clearly appears from the impugned order that four appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were filed against Orders-in-Original only and not against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) gravely erred in giving the said findings which is against the fact appearin....