2025 (10) TMI 812

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....interest, as well as to pay compensation for withholding of refund for longer period of time. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is engaged in manufacture of Sunglasses and Spectacle frames falling under Chapter 90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It appears that petitioner had not reversed/deposited the CENVAT Credit involved in the inputs written off by it in its balance sheet for the A.Y. 2000-2001. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18th May 2004 was issued to petitioner demanding amount of Rs. 16,89,669/- along with interest and penalty. The said show cause notice culminated in the demand vide Order-in-Original No. 67/104 dated 21st October 2004. 3. Being aggrieved of Order-in-Original N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18, petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur which was rejected again vide order dated 02nd September 2019. 8. Being aggrieved of Order-in-Original No. 241(CRM)/CE/JPR/2019 dated 02nd September 2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT vide final order No. 51613/2021 dated 29th June 2021 set aside the findings arrived upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur and allowed the appeal filed by assessee. The operative portion of the CESTAT order dated 29th June 2021 is re-produced as under: ".....the fact remains that entitlement of the appellant to refund of duty paid got finalised only on 21.04.2017 hence the relevant date under S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... maintainability of this writ petition and submits that alternative remedy of appeal is available to petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur under the provisions of Section 35 of the Act. He further submits that petitioner has not filed claim within one year from 29th June 2021 (order passed by CESTAT) and has filed claim on 06th October 2022, therefore, same cannot be held to be within a period of one year, he accordingly, supported the order dated 04th January 2023. 12. This Court, while dealing with the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petition, finds that the same is not sustainable, since petitioner's contention was upheld after a chequered history of litigation in terms of table detailed herein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld in its favour, as per the order passed by the CESTAT vide final order No. 51613/2021 dated 29th June 2021. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that in first round of litigation, petitioner's application/claim for refund filed on 19th February 2018, was wrongly rejected, as being time barred. Subsequently the CESTAT held that refund claim was not time barred, and was thus wrongly rejected. It is an admitted position on record that order of the CESTAT has not been assailed by respondent-department. Therefore, findings recorded by CESTAT in order dated 29th June 2021 have attained finality. 16. In view of the above facts, rejection of refund on the ground that petitioner had filed instant refund claim on 06th October 2022 after expiry....