TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r appeal, they became entitled to the refund of the said amount, for which purposes they approached the Revenue. Inasmuch as the Revenue was not implementing the Tribunal's Order, the appellants filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal seeking direction to the proper officer for doing the needful. The said Miscellaneous Application was disposed of vide Order No. M-949/Kol./2001, dated 25-9-2001 directing the Revenue to implement the Tribunal's Order within a period of one month from that date. Thereafter, the appellants again approached the Revenue for the refund of the pre-deposited amount. However, they received a letter from the Superintendent dated 13-11-2001 informing the appellants that the CEGAT's Order has been implemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants without expressing our opinion on the classification of the product in question." The above order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the Revenue before Higher Appellate Forum. As such admittedly the appellants became entitled to refund of duty amount deposited by them in terms of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which requires the appellants to deposit the amount as a pre-condition of hearing of their appeal unless the same is dispensed with by the Tribunal. It is very surprising to note that instead of implementing the Tribunal's Order read with subsequent order dated 25-9-2001, the Deputy Commissioner has chosen to pass the adjudication order rejecting the refund claim. It is more surprising to find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Deputy Commissioner has observed that even if the incidence of duty was not passed on at the time of removal of goods, nothing prevented the claimants to collect the duty by raising separate bill later. However, the above observation is only in the arena of assumption and presumption inasmuch as there is no evidence that the appellants collected the amount in question from their customer at a later stage. As such, we are in agreement with the ld. Advocate that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order dated 29-3-2001 in utter disregard of judicial principles of law. 6. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of Wazir Steel Industries has held that such type of order passed by the lower authorities, after the allowing of the appeal ....