AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported components/accessories and spares for the manufacture and maintenance of high performance liquid chromatographs systems from their principals M/s. Waters Ges. Austria and M/s. Waters Corporation USA. As per the investigation order no. 158/95 dated 14.11.95 of SVB, Chennai the goods were originally assessed based on invoice value for components and at the ratio of 95:100 on the invoice value for spares. The bills were provisionally assessed. Consequent on the finalization by the special valuation Branch Chennai vide order 11812/2002 SVB dated 26.07.2002, the provisional assessments were finalized and the appellant filed a claim for refund of extra duty deposit of Rs. 8,23,824/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Eight Hundred a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Four only) was refunded to the appellants who had accepted the refund amount of Rs. 2,22,444/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Four only) for which a cheque dated 16.02.2004 was issued in full settlement of the refund claim. Aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contesting the issue of refund being barred by limitation and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 29.03.2004 allowed the appeal stating that the relevant date is when the end use bond was discharged and cancelled on 04.03.2003 and the refund claim has been resubmitted on 19.06.2003 which is well within the limitation period o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the representative of the appellant has accepted the refund of Rs. 2,22,444/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Four only). Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 30.04.2009 rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and the law in the right perspective and also without considering the decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court. He further submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.03.2004 vide whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rine Ltd. Vs. CCE 2006 (204) E.L.T. 297 (Tri.-Mum.) b. Vaspar Concepts (P) Ltd. V. CCE 2006 (199) ELT 711 (Tri.-Bang.) c. Punjab Communications Ltd. Vs. CCE 2006 (199) E.L.T. 161 (Tri.-Del.) d. Birla Copper Vs. CCEx, Vadodara 2005 (191) E.L.T. 239 (Tri.-Mum.) 3.2. He further submitted that the entire refund proceedings have been conducted without adhering to the principles of natural justice since all information and orders were being issued by letters and by passing cryptic order without any findings and in support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Nestle India Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 577 (SC) b. Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. CC (Refund) - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 955 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n it has been held that in the earlier proceedings, the adjudicating authority cannot raise the fresh ground for which the assessee has not been given any notice. Further I also find that in the case of G-Tech Computer Education Centre, this Tribunal has held as under: "Refund - Consequent to decision of Appellate Authority - Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside tax liability beyond normal period and also penalty imposed - Order of Commissioner (Appeals) not challenged by Revenue and becoming final - Improper to reject refund claim made pursuant to order of Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that assessee had voluntarily paid tax - Having accepted Commissioner (Appeals) decision, Department cannot turnaround and not implement it ....