Garware Polyester Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(21)02/2010 dated 3.2.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

======================================================

Garware Polyester Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangad Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Vinay Jain, C.A., for appellant Shri A.B. Kulgad, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 28.8.2015 Date of Decision: 7.9.2015

ORDER NO

This is an appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3.2.2010 rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. The original authority has also dismissed the refund claim.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in their own case in similar circumstances, this Tribunal vide order reported in 2012 (27) STR 288 (T), has allowed the appeal.

3. Learned AR submits that as would be seen from the order-in-original, the appellant did not produce any documents. Further, they did not reply to the show cause notice and did not appear for personal hearing and it is only in those circumstances that the refund claim was rejected.

4. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority to decide the issue in accordance with law, including any case laws cited by the appellant. It is also made clear that the original authority will give sufficient time and opportunity to the appellant to present the documents and also explain their case.

5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Pronounced in Court on 7.9.2015)

(P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)

tvu 1 3