2023 (7) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assistant Commissioner for an amount of Rs.4,51,294/- for the reason that the quantity of caustic soda lye, the appellant have supplied to M/s NALCO, was less than the invoiced quantity and therefore, there was excess payment of duty. It is also not disputed that the receiver NALCO has paid the amount equivalent to the quantity of the material received by them and availed CENVAT credit only on the quantity received by them. The Assistant Commissioner has sanctioned the refund claim. The Department being aggrieved of the same filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the Departmental appeal. On an appeal filed by the Department, CESTAT vide Final Order No.30507- 30512/2018 dated 17.04.2018 dismissed the Department's appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., he is not eligible for refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, is incorrect; a plain reading of the section makes it clear that "a buyer" who has borne the burden of duty and has not passed on the same can claim refund; Tribunal in the Final Order No.968-969/2009 dated 07.05.2009 has discussed the issue on merits also by applying the provisions of Section 11B to the facts of the case and therefore, the appellants are eligible for refund. Learned Counsel submits that Department is resorting to multiple reviews against the same cause of action, which is not permissible under law; Department is bound by the decisions of Higher Appellate Tribunal and the High Court in the appellant's own case instead of taking a contrary stand. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f a show cause notice on the grounds that refund granted was erroneous, where no appeal was filed against the order of the Tribunal. The Order-in-Original No.81/2013-CE (R) dated 15.07.2013 was passed by the lower authority following the Final Order No. 968- 969/2009 dated 07.05.2009 of CESTAT. The issue travelled up to the Tribunal after the appeal filed by the Department was rejected by the First Appellate Authority. CESTAT vide Final Order No. A/30507- 30512/2018 dated 17.04.2018 rejected the Department's appeal. The order was not challenged by the Department. Meanwhile, an appeal against the Final Order No.968-969/2009 dated 07.05.2009 was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble High Court on the grounds of monetary limits. 7. Though, ....