2007 (9) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition is filed to challenge the order of CESTAT dated 22-9-2006 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (A) dated 22-2-2005. 3. In this case, the petitioner had filed a refund claim on 30-3-2004 claiming refund of Rs. 5,45,942/-. By a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,396/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal and the Commissioner of Central Excise (A) by his order dated 22-2-2005 held that in view of the reversal of the drawback/rebate the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 3,61,786/-. 6. Challenging the said order the revenue filed an appeal before the CESTAT and by the impugned order dated 22-9-2006 the Tribunal a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that once the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise by his order dated 31-12-2004 has dropped the show cause notice dated 17-6-2004, the revenue could not have rejected the refund claim of the petitioner by adjudicating the show cause notice dated 16-4-2004. Mr. Menezes further submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal was in violation of the principles of natural justice because the Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected on the ground of availment of duty drawback/rebate. 10. However, in view of the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and in view of the fact that by the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of two different appeals filed by the revenue without going into the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and direct ....