TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The appellants commenced commercial production on 01.11.2011. The appellants filed refund claims of Rs.56,76,286/- and Rs.89,14,851/- for the periods September 2014 to November 2014 and December 2014 to March 2015, respectively, being refund of self-credit under the area-based exemption scheme. The original adjudicating authority, processed these refund claims, under Notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010; vide orders dated 13.03.2015 and 30.10.2015, rejected refund of amounts of Rs.36,32,823 and Rs.56,37,652 respectively, being in excess of the admissible refund over and above the value addition norm under the said notification, as the appellants commenced commercial production on 01.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e extent of value addition, in view of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in VVF Ltd 2020 (372) ELT 495 (S.C.). 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the main contention of the appellant is that the orders of this Bench issued on 13.03.2015 are not complied; the department could have considered the refund under earlier Notification No 56/2002; their request is on record. We find that before the Commissioner (Appeals), they have represented that the order in original was not a speaking order. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed under, in the impugned order. 5.2. In this regard. I find that the date of commencement of production of the appellant is 01-11-2011. It is evident from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion either under the first Notification or under the said notification and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for denovo decision. During the course of personal hearing held on25.10.2017. the appellant themselves informed that the decision of the jurisdictional Commissioner, in denovo proceedings, in compliance of CESTAT' Order No. 5060350604 dated 13-03-2015, is still pending. Though in statement of facts, the appellant has claimed that they filed refund-claims for the months of September 2014 to November 2014, in terms of the first notification.However, they have not placed on record any evidence in this regard. Either copies of refund claim applications or copy of option filed for availing facility of self-cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said notification. The appellant has also not placed any evidence on record, regarding bringing the directions dated 13-032015, of Hon'ble CESTAT, in the knowledge of adjudicating authority before passing of the impugned orders dated 30.10-2015 or regarding having applied for refund claims in terms of first Notification. 5. On going through the impugned order, we find that the learned Commissioner has not addressed the concerns of the appellants regarding the absence of speaking order. Regarding this objection by the appellants, commissioner finds that the issue regarding whether the appellant's unit is located in the areas specified under the firs Notification and whether they satisfy the other conditions of that notification w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en done by the original authority remanded the matter to him for de novo decision with directions to examine as to whether the appellant's unit is located in the areas specified under the first Notification and they satisfy the other conditions, if any, of that notification. Commissioner (Appeals) while accepting that this Bench remanded the matter to Commissioner directing him. Inter alia, to see whether appellants are eligible for the first notification, finds that no request of the appellant to consider the refund under the first notification is not on record. 7. We further find that Learned Authorised Representative submits that the appellants' claim of entitlement to 100% refund of central excise duty under Not....