HUSMUN ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., DAMAN
LAWS(CE)-2015-3-6
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 09,2015

Husmun Enterprises Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Central Excise And S.T., Daman Respondents

JUDGEMENT

H.K. Thakur, Member (T) - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. SKSS/236/DMN/NDMN/2010 -11 dated 09.11.2010 under which OIO No. 02/AC/NDMN/2010 -11/R dated 06.5.2010 passed by the Adjudicating authority was upheld. Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim as time barred and also for non submission of documents under which the amounts were paid.
(2.)WHEN the case was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. An adjournment request dated 09.3.2015 was brought to the notice of the bench, sought on the grounds that Advocate of the appellant was busy in a ROA before the Fema Court, Delhi. The adjournment sought was strongly objected by the learned Authorised Representative Dr. Jeetesh Nagori. It is observed that on earlier occasions on 04.1.2013, 21.1.2013, 08.3.2013 and 31.5.2013 also adjournments were sought by the appellant. Under the facts and circumstances adjournment request of the appellant is rejected and case is taken up for hearing.
Shri J. Nagori (Authorised Representative) argued the matter on behalf of the Revenue. He made the bench go through Para 4.3 and 4.4 of the Order -in -Appeal dated 09.11.2010 to argue that appellant has failed to produce copies of the CENVAT credit record to establish that credit of Rs. 5,32,481/ - was not taken by the appellant as a result of earlier appellate order passed. That, refund of Rs. 1,00,000/ - redemption fine is also time barred as filed much beyond one year as required under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

(3.)HEARD learned Authorised Representative and perused the case records. In view of the facts recorded in Para 4.2 of the Order -in -Appeal dated 09.11.2010, refund of Rs. 5,32,481/ - was ordered to be taken as Cenvat credit as per Order -in -Appeal dated 29.12.1999 and unit was undertaking manufacture and clearance up to 19.9.2003. Appellant did not produce accounts of not taking credit during the period 29.12.1999 to 19.09.2003. In view of the above facts, first appellate authority has correctly rejected the appeal of the appellant with respect to refund of Rs. 5,32,481/ -, as the appellant has also not produced any records with this appeal to the extent that no credit of Rs. 5,32,481/ - was taken as a result of earlier favourable order passed by the first appellate authority.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.