Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 119/2007 dated 10/12/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Irimpanam Installation, Irimpanam, Kochi  682 309 Appellant(s)

Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin C.R Building, I.S Press Road, Ernakulam, Cochin - 682 018 Kerala Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Mr. A.K. Nigam, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 03/02/2015 Date of Decision: 03/02/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20231 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

On matter being called neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request in spite of the notice of hearing having been sent well in advance. It is also noticed that the appellant was unrepresented on the last date when the matter was adjourned today.

2. After hearing the learned DR I find that the appellant became entitled to refund of deposited amount of duty in terms of an order of the Tribunal. The said refund was to the extent of around Rs. 1.11 Crore (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs only). The lower authorities sanctioned the said refund claim but adjusted an amount of Rs. 31,08,249/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Nine only) against the confirmed outstanding demand.

3. The appellants only objection is that such adjustment could not have been made and they were entitled to the full refund.

4. It is seen that nothing has been placed on record as regards the status of the confirmed demands against which the refunds have been adjusted. If those demands have been set aside by the higher authorities, the appellant would become entitled to the refund and if those demands have been upheld against the assessee, the appellant is liable to pay the same and as such adjustment can be held to be justified.

5. With the above observation I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority to examine the appellants grievances and to re-decide the same based upon the outcome of the proceedings in the other matters, against which the said refund claims have been adjusted. Needless to say that the appellant would be given an opportunity to put forth their case.

6. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss