2022 (8) TMI 1104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Department Shri Sameer Sood, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER The Department has filed this appeal to assail the order dated December 29, 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals)- II, Delhi [the Commissioner (Appeals)] by which the order dated August 24, 2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning the rebate claim of Rs. 51,89,236/- to the respondent has been uphe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el)] and Commissioner CCE Pune v. Bobst India Pvt Ltd [2016 (44) STR 316 (Tri-Mum)]. The Bench, accordingly, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine afresh the matter in the light of the law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal. 3. On remand, the adjudicating authority after placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal concluded that the servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Central excise Act 1944; instead of being credited to the (Consumer Welfare Fund), (refund amount will) be paid to the applicant." 4. Feeling aggrieved, the Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by order dated December 29, 2017 upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal. 5. The only grounds raised in this appeal, as contained in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... challenged before the Supreme Court and appeals are pending, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have decided the appeal. 7. Shri Sameer Sood, learned counsel for the respondent has, however, pointed out that the order dated November 16, 2016 passed by the Tribunal was not assailed by the Department and, therefore, once there was a direction to adjudicate afresh in the light of the five decisi....