2022 (4) TMI 931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue to be decided in this appeal is: whether the First Appellate Authority was correct in confirming the rejection of refund as made by the Adjudicating Authority? 3.1 Smt. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, would inter alia submit that in the first round of litigation before this forum, this Bench had remanded the matter for fresh decision; that consequently, a de novo Order-in-Original was passed wherein, again, the rejection of refund claim was made, against which an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Chennai, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 75/2020 (CTA-II) dated 31.07.2020 had set aside the rejection order with a further direction to the Adjudicating Authority to call for any such st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise Duty on the supply of High Speed Diesel made to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. But however, both the authorities below have not given any finding on those documents which, according to the Learned Advocate for the appellant, would establish the payment of duty by the appellant, indirectly, that is to say the recipient has acknowledged the receipt of duty by the appellant. She would thus submit that the authorities below have seriously misdirected themselves by not appreciating the evidentiary value of the documents and hence, the rejection of the refund claim is improper. 4. Per contra, Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Learned Superintendent appearing for the Revenue, defended the order of the First Appellate Authority. He would also subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e available to substantiate the duty payment. This, according to me, is illogical since the recipient, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, has itself issued a certificate clearly reflecting the payment of Central Excise Duty, which is not disputed by the Revenue. Surprisingly, there is no discussion in both the orders of the First Appellate Authority as well as the Adjudicating Authority as to the contents and relevancy of those documents, which only defeats the purpose of furnishing documents. 8. Admittedly, the appellant had claimed refund for the period from September 2004 to April 2007 and since then, the appellant has not been given sustainable reasons for denying its rightful claim for refund. The Revenue has not denied the conte....