TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise Appeal No. 504 of 2008 filed by the appellant. By the impugned order, the appeal has been dismissed on a very limited consideration mainly on primary ground in relation to the audit objection which was subject matter of consideration is the Central Excise Revenue Audit (for short "CERA"). The only findings that are recorded by the Tribunal are in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the order dated 20th December 2018 which reads thus : - "4. The primary ground of Revenue is that the matter should have been kept pending by the adjudicating authority in 'call book' in view of the pendency of the audit objection. 5. We find that the issue can be decided on the basis of this ground alone without going into the merits of the issue which, having been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat on 20th February 2007, the CERA made a report (HM Report No. CERA/LAPI/H.M.2) raising an objection against sanction of refund to the respondent. Immediately thereafter, a show cause notice in question dated 11th April 2007 came to be issued seeking recovery of refund on the ground that refund itself was not permissible. On 24th April 2007, the Commissioner Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Khandeshwar directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order dated 10th January 2007, by which refund was granted to the respondent. Such appeal came to be filed by the revenue on 4th May 2007. Admittedly prior to the filing of such appeal, a show cause notice in question dated 11th April 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 2018. 5. On behalf of the appellant revenue, it is contended that the Tribunal is not correct in confining the adjudication of the appeal only on the ground of an objection which was subject matter of consideration before the CERA. The Revenue contends that the show cause notice itself was on merits and could not have been dropped by the order dated 31st January 2008 by the Commissioner. It is contended that the show cause notice was infact issued prior to the decision taken by the CERA and hence all the issues have been adjudicated. It is contended that the revenue had given up their claim as the Tribunal has confined the adjudication to a limited issue as observed in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the impugned order dated 20th December 2018. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 10.01.2007, under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is proper and legal, when the accumulated credit in the Cenvet Credit account was due to the fact that the inputs of the assessee were subject to higher rate of duty than the final products and not due to more exports ? (b) Whether the CESTAT was right in passing/issuing the Impugned Order on 06.03.2020 after 14 months of hearing the matter finally on 20.12.2018, which is in violation of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules read with CESTAT circular dated 23.07.2005-20099236) ELT T15.F.(D.R.) and Advisory No. F.26-2/2009-A.D.1C dated 31.01.2012(276) ELT (T8) ? (c) Whether the CESTAT, being last fact finding authority, erred in dismissing the appeal without discussing merit of the appeal....