Lg Polymers India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 3 to 6/2008 dated 29/02/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam]

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? No 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

LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd., RR Venkatapuram (Post) Visakhapatnam Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I Central Excise Building Port Area Visakhapatnam  530 035 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Mr. R. Gurunathan, DR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 03/08/2015 Date of Decision: 03/08/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21756 / 2015

Nobody appeared. Accordingly I have heard learned DR and have gone through the impugned orders.

2. It is seen that the lower authorities, after sanctioning the eligible rebate to the tune of Rs. 11.56 lakhs (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand approximately), adjusted the same against outstanding demands pending before the authorities. Only a balance of Rs. 1.71 lakhs (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand approximately) was sanctioned.

3. The appellant is aggrieved with the said adjustment of sanctioned rebate claimed against the outstanding demands. As the appellants are unrepresented today, there is nothing on record to show as to what has happened to those outstanding demands. Learned DR is also not in a position to reflect upon the status of the outstanding demands. If the same has already been set aside by any higher appellate forum, the adjusted amount of sanctioned rebate have to be refunded to the assessee. If the demands stand confirmed by the higher authorities, the assessee is under a legal obligation to pay the same, in which case, the adjustment have to be held to be proper.

4. With these observations I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh in the light of the latest factual position. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss