Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Welcure Drugs & Pharmaceuticals ... vs Cce, Jaipur on 9 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision:09.11.2015
Excise Appeal No. E/3055 of 2006-EX (DB)
[Arising out of common Order-in-Appeal No.196(GRM)CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 26.07.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur.]
M/s. Welcure Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. .Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri R.Krishnan, Advocate for the appellants. Rep. by Shri Govind Dixit, DR for the Department. For approval and signature:
Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S. , Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Coram: Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53432/2015 dated:09.11.2015 Per B. RAVICHANDRAN:
The present appeal is against the order in appeal dated 21.07.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.P. medicines liable to central excise duty. They filed a refund claim with jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner on the ground that they have issued credit notes to the buyers because of variation in prices due to rectification of mistake/over charging in the original invoices. The refund claim was examined and sectioned by the Original Authority vide his order no.58/2005 dated 1.8.2005. However, he ordered the sanctioned refund amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue filed an appeal against this order with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order No.196/2006 dated 21.07.2006 allowed the appeal by setting aside the original order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant is before us.
3. During the oral submissions, ld. Counsel for the appellant, Shri R.Krishnan submitted that against the original order of the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner, the assessee also filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order No.448 of 2005 dated 7.12.2005 rejected the assessees appeal. Against the said order, the assessee had filed an appeal with the Tribunal being No.E/229/2006-SM(BR). The Tribunal vide Final order No.227/2008-SM (BR) dated 10.01.2008 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh the question of unjust enrichment based on the evidences produced by the appellant.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that consequent upon the remand order, the appellant have been sanctioned and paid the refund amount and as such, the present appeal is not being pressed.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the appellant, we find that the present appeal has become infructuous, which is disposed of accordingly.
[Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court] ( Sulekha Beevi C.S. ) Member (Judicial) ( B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1