TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present case are that the appellants inter alia engaged in the manufacture of Pre-stressed Concrete Mono Block Sleepers (PSC Mono Block Sleepers) and Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) respectively falling under Chapter Sub-heading 68109990 & 38245010 of CETA 1995. The appellant mainly supplied the goods manufactured to Indian Railways on payment of Excise duty and are availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services. The Preventive Wing of the Department visited the premises of the appellant on 17.08.2011 and on verification of the records, raised an objection with regard to availment of CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,55,088/- on the capital goods i.e. Transit concrete mixer and FB Tipper for the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant to pay adjudication levies as per Order-in-Appeal dated 30.12.2014. Thereafter, the appellant came to know about the fact of passing the Order-in-Appeal and then learned Counsel approached the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Hubli vide letter dated 05.03.2019 with a request to furnish the copy of the impugned order which they did not receive. The appellant did not get any response from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and they again vide letter dated 12.03.2019 requested for furnishing the copy of Order-in-Appeal but no communication was received from the Deputy Commissioner and in the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner without furnishing the copy of the Order-in-Appeal recovered an amount of Rs. 49,14,592/- on 12.03.2019 from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide his Order dated 30.12.2019 rejected the refund claim on the ground that the claim is nowhere related to Section 35F. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Belgaum and the Commissioner (Appeals), Belgaum vide Order dated 04.09.2020 rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the amount co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted the appeal on payment of pre-deposit and by specifically holding that there was no delay in filing the appeal from the date of receipt of the copy of the Order-in-Appeal. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions: * Concepts Global Impex Vs UOI, 2019 (365) ELT 32 (P&H). * Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI, 2009 (234) ELT 234 (P&H). * Century Knitters (India) Ltd. Vs UOI, 2013(293) ELT 504 (P&H). * Bhagwati International Vs UOI, 2005 (190) ELT 300 (P&H). * Sujaya D. Alwa Vs CCE & ST, Mangalore, 2019 (28) GSTL 196 (Kar.). * Enmas Andritz Pvt. Ltd. Vs CESTAT, Chennai, 2019 (28) GSTL 196 (Kar.). * Monnet International Ltd. Vs CCE, New Delhi, 2017 (3) GSTL 380 (Tri. Del.) 4.1 Learned Couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., recovered an amount of Rs. 49,14,592/- on 12.03.2019 from the current account maintained by the appellant with Andhra Bank. Further, I find that appellant could get the copy only from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) on 29.03.2019 and thereafter immediately, the appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal on payment of 10% of the disputed duty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 which was admitted by the Tribunal by holding that the appeal is filed within time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Further, I find that once the appeal was admitted thereafter the appellant sought the refund of the amount recovered by the Deputy Commissioner without serving the Order-in-Appeal. It is really strange that a....