2013 (9) TMI 1009

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Rs. 7,66,643/- being the excess amount of duty paid for clearances to M/s. Numaligargh Refinery Ltd. (M/s. NRL) during July, 2004 to September, 2004. The refund claim was though sanctioned on 25-10-1995 by the Asst. Commissioner but transferred to consumer welfare fund on the ground of being hit by unjust enrichment. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 6-3-1999, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-examination of the documents. Against the said order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Order No. A-812/Kol/2006, dated 19-9-2006, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Deputy Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), hence, the second appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is within time. Thus, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has got jurisdiction and should have decided the issue in view of the specific direction of the Committee on Disputes. The ld. Advocate has further submitted that since the issue was decided in their favour by the earlier Order-in-Appeal dated 6-3-1999, therefore, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 20-8-2008, deciding the issue afresh on merit, is bad in law being beyond the scope of remand order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 6-3-1999. On merit, the ld. Advocate has submitted that there is no question of any unjust enrichment, as the incidence of duty had never been pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and perused the records. I find that the issue involved in the present case, relates to maintainability of the second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35A of CEA,1944 against the rejection of their refund claim in the de novo proceeding. The present litigation has a chequered history. The claim was originally filed on 24-2-1995 seeking refund of excess duty paid, which was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the said litigation continued at various levels. Ultimately, a de novo order was passed on 20-8-2008 by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner rejecting the refund claim of the appellant again on the ground of unjust enrichment. An appeal against the said order before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), was a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot entertain two appeals against the same Order-in-Original by the same appellant and cannot pass two different orders. It can only be possible if the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order passed earlier is set aside by the Hon'ble CESTAT and remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision." 6. Secondly, his conclusion is that the Committee on Disputes has no authority to give any direction or remand the case to either the adjudicating authority or appellate authority for deciding the issue afresh. After discussing guidelines issued by the Board vide its Circular No. 269/103/96-CX, dated 15-11-1996, on the role and jurisdiction of Committee on Disputes in resolving the issue between a Public Sector Undertaking and Governme....