TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut the actual receipts of inputs. According to the respondent-Revenue, the entire transaction is a transaction without there being any transaction in reality. Same has resulted in the wrongful availment of CENVAT credit by the Appellant. Based on these allegations, the respondent-Department initiated an investigation which has culminated in issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 12th February, 2007, based on which the Adjudicating Authority, vide Order-in-Original dated 2nd December, 2010, confirmed a demand of Rs. 9.73 crores against the Appellant, along with interest thereon, and further imposed a penalty. 3. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 2nd December, 2010, the Appellant filed an appeal (Appeal No. E/577/2011) along with a stay application before the CESTAT. 4. The stay application was disposed of with a direction to the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.5 crores as pre-deposit. Besides, during the course of the investigation, the Appellant claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in addition to Rs. 1.5 crores as stated above. As per the Appellant, the total amount deposited came to Rs. 1.65 crores. 5. Vide order dated 2nd February, 2018, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax (Appeals-II), Delhi. 10. The appellate authority passed an ex-parte order dated 7th January, 2019, on the basis of the material available on record, and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for the reconsideration of interest payable to the Appellant. The relevant portion of order dated 07th January, 2019 reads as under:- "Personal Hearing has been granted to the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent on 06.12.2018, 11.12.2018 & 13.12.2018. No one appeared for the same. Since none of the parties involved has appeared for Personal Hearing despite providing sufficient opportunity for the same, I proceed to decide the matter ex-parte on the basis of facts on record. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4(ii) From the perusal of impugned order, I find that the predeposit has been made by the respondent during February/March 2006 and May 2013. During that time, Section 35(FF) of CEA, 1944 provides payment of interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit "after the expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority, till the date of refund of such amount." Undisputedly the impugned order has been passed afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al preferred by Appellant was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 02nd May, 2024 inter alia holding that the amount was pre-deposited by the Appellant in February-March 2006 and May 2013. The relevant provisions of Section 35FF applicable at the said time entitled the Appellant to the interest only from the expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order passed by the appellate authority, until the date of actual refund of the deposited amount. 13. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred an application seeking rectification of the order dated 02nd May, 2024, inter alia, on the ground that the controversy before the Learned Tribunal was confined to the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice and the consequentially sought remand of the matter for fresh adjudication with keeping all issues open. It was submitted that the Learned Tribunal exceeded the scope of the controversy by adjudicating the matter on merits, despite the fact that the was never argued by the Appellant on the merits, as such, opportunity was never offered. 14. However, the Learned Tribunal, vide order dated 23rd September, 2024, dismissed the application filed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant itself decided Vide the Order-in- Appeal. No. 298/Central Tax/ Appi-11/Delhi/2018 dated 07.01.2019. Had the appellant been intimated about hearing on 13.12.2018 in present case also the representative of the appellant would have attended the hearing in this case also as he had appeared in the above cited case on the same day. The impugned order is liable to be set aside/ remanded on this ground alone." 22. Relevantly, para 3 of the order dated 07th January, 2019 holds that personal Hearing was granted to the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (appellant herein) on 06.12.2018, 11.12.2018 & 13.12.2018, however, since none had appeared despite providing sufficient opportunity, the matter was decided ex-parte. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated, in categorical terms, that on the very same day i.e. on 13th December,2018, Appellant had appeared before the respondent in another case filed by it, wherein a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure A-9. wherein paragraph 3 of the said order reads thus:- "3. Personal Hearing dated 13.12.2018 has been attended by Sh. Rajesh Rawal (Advocate) on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated the submissio....