E/23374/2014-SM, [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 451/2014 dated 31/07/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal) ]. Case: Sudhir Papers Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberE/23374/2014-SM, [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 451/2014 dated 31/07/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal) ]
CounselFor Appellant: Shri N. Anand, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Mohd. Yousaf, AR
JudgesShri S.S Garg, Judicial Member
IssueCentral Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985
Judgement DateMay 19, 2017
CourtCEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

S.S Garg, (South Zonal Bench Bangalore)

  1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original.

  2. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturers of coated papers falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 8410.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 and they filed refund claim seeking refund of duty paid on cash discount, quantity discount and dealer discount of Rs.3,09,653/- for November 2000 to December 2001 and Rs.5,31,333/- for January 2002 to March 2002. Both the claims were rejected vide Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2002 and 18.6.2003 on the ground that no discounts were shown in the invoices at the time of clearance of the goods. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who also rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before CESTAT and the CESTAT vide Final Order No.755/2008 dated 24.7.2008 rejected the appeal on the ground of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, appellant filed appeal before the Honble High Court of Karnataka and the Honble High Court vide judgment dated 28.3.2011 allowed the claim for the period from 8.3.2001 to 31.03.2001 and rejected the claim for the period from 1.11.2000 to 7.3.2001 as time barred. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim on 30.3.2012 for the period from April 2001 to December 2001 and from January 2002 to March 2002. The original authority vide the Order-in-Original rejected the claim pertaining to January 2002 to March 2002 being not covered by the judgment of the Honble High Court and the claim pertaining to April 2001 to December 2001 as time barred. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who also rejected the refund on time bar and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence the present appeal.

  3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.

  4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed in total disregard and disobedience of the judgment of the Honble Karnataka High Court which has allowed the appeal of the appellant and the said refund arises as a consequence of the judgment of the High Court. He further submitted that there was no necessity to file a fresh claim of refund and the departmental...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT