2023 (1) TMI 875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igible for refund to the extent of Rs.10,82,594/- and the said amount refunded to the respondent is recoverable from them. Further, he has also held that the respondent is only eligible for refund of the amount of pre-deposit of Rs.81,195/- made at the time of filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The learned Consultant appearing for the appellant, at the outset, raised the preliminary objection that the impugned order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not maintainable inasmuch as the said order was passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act 1994, instead of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this context, the learned Consultant submitted that the issue involved in this case pertains to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Vs. CCE Meerut [2017 (347) elt 400 (All)] iii. Sree Vishnu Electronics Vs. CCE Chennai [2015 (326) ELT 113 (Mad)] iv. Smt. Rama Agrawal Vs. Smt. Mithlesh Agarwal [2015 SCC Online MP 1195] v. CCE Chennai Vs. Sree Vishnu Electronics [2010 (249) ELT 378 (Tri-Chennai)]37-39 vi. CC(P) Kikata Vs. Goel Airshrienk (I) Ltd. [2007 (219) ELT 556 (Tri-Kolkata)] vii. Laxmi Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur - 2017 (52) S.T.R. 386 (Tri.-All.) 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the Department in this case has issued the show cause notices dated 06.07.2015 and 02.09.2015, seeking recovery of the inadmissible Cenvat Credit under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the provisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, appeals should have been filed under Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944, Whereas the appeals have been filed by using ST-7 forms. He submitted that similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Guardian Plasticote Limited, who are respondents in two appeals today also, vide Order No. A/463/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 7-5-2010 [2010 (19) STR 447 (Tribunal)]. In that case, the Tribunal had decided that appeal has to be rejected in view of the fact that appeal has been filed in form meant for service tax appeal and in respect of a manufacturer who had availed cenvat credit and it should have been filed under Central Excise Act and during the relevant time there was no Commissionerate at Valsad at all. Since in all these four ....