TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 974
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, CESTAT was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the Department although the order-in-appeal dated 24.12.2007, which was under challenge before CESTAT, had been implemented by the Assistant Commissioner under adjudication order dated 4.4.2008 by sanctioning the refund that had attained finality; and no further notice was issued to consider the refund sanctioned as being erroneous, in terms of Section 11-A of the Central Exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was adopted by the assessee. The appellant had infact paid excess duty to the Government to the tune of Rs. 31,91,496/- during the period from 01.07.1999 to 26.10.2000. 3. The appellant was pursuing the matter with the oil companies to reimburse the excise duty paid by them. Since the oil companies did not reimburse, the appellant filed an application for refund on 24.08.2006 before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bengaluru seeking refund of amount of Rs. 31,91,496/-. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 07.11.2006 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bengaluru to the appellant proposing to reject the claim. The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated 24.05.2007, rejected the claim of refund made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the appellant and the oil companies as the relevant date for claiming refund as per Section 11B of the Act. 5. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 24.12.2007 was already implemented by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 04.02.2008 sanctioning the refund of the amount which was a fact admitted in paragraph 2 of the order passed of the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the amount of refund became due to the appellant in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 24.12.2007 and therefore, in view of Section 11A and Explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV Vs. SRI.BALAJI CYLINDERS (P) LTD.' (2014) 50 TAXMANN.COM 388 (MADRAS). 7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, the application for refund made by the appellant on 24.08.2006 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 24.05.2007. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). It is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), by an order dated 24.12.2007, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Therefore, under the order dated 24.1....