Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Commr. Of Central Excise, Kolkata Iii vs M/S Vegetable Products Ltd on 21 May, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA

 Ex. Appeal No.EDM-479/05 & CO-01/06

Arising out of Order in Appeal No.175/Kol-III/05 dated 7.7.05 passed by Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata.

For approval and signature:

SHRI S. S. KANG, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
DR. CHITTARANJAN  SATAPATHY, HON'BLE TECHNICAL MEMBER


1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see                   
the  Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the 
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?                                    :

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication                   
in any authoritative report or not?                                    :

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy 
of  the Order?                                                                 :

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?                                                                    :  
      
Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata III
...APPELLANT(S)    
  
            VERSUS

M/s Vegetable Products Ltd.
	                                          				               RESPONDENT (S)

APPEARANCE Shri J. A. Khan, SDR for the Appellant-Revenue Shri B. N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Respondent (s) CORAM:

SHRI S. S. KANG, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, HON'BLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of hearing & decision : 21. 05. 2009 ORDER NO......................................................................................... Per S. S. Kang :
Heard both sides. The revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the present respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate steps to refund the amount, which was paid but not appropriated in the adjudication order.

2. The contention of the revenue is that as the amount in question was voluntarily paid by the present respondents, therefore, there is no question of refund. The contention of the respondents is that in pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the amount in question has already been refunded to the present respondents and the amount was not appropriated in the adjudication order and no appeal is filed by the revenue against the adjudication order seeking appropriation of the amount.

3. We find that the adjudicating authority has not appropriated the amount which was with the revenue. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the present respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps for refund of the amount. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Cross Objection is also disposed off in the same terms.

 (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
		Sd/					Sd/
( DR. CHITTARANJAN  SATAPATHY )	  	           ( S. S. KANG )
        TECHNICAL MEMBER			    VICE PRESIDENT
mm











































































































































































































































































































2
Ex.Appeal No.EDM-479/05