w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Commissioner of C. Ex. , Thane-II V/S Astamed Healthcare (I) Pvt. Ltd.

    Final Order Nos. A/91558-91563/2017-WZB in Appeal Nos. E/87393-87395 and 87397-87399/2017
    Decided On, 14 December 2017
    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ARCHANA WADHWA
    By, MEMBER
    For Petitioner: A.B. Kulgod, AC (AR) And For Respondents: Prasad Paranjpe, Advocate


Judgment Text

1. All the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute relates to the refund of accumulated and unutilized Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. It is seen that the matter was earlier also taken up by Commissioner (Appeals) and was decided in favour of the assessee on merits. However, the matter was sent back for verification of the documents.

2. The refund was again rejected by the original adjudicating authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) took into consideration each and every issue raised before him and came to a finding that though the respondent submitted the documents before the Assistant Commissioner, but he has failed to consider the same. Accordingly he went on examining each and every document and found the same to be proper.

3. Revenue in their memo of appeal has not produced any evidence to the contrary so as to rebut the finding arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. It is seen that the appellate authority has rightly observed that inasmuch as the first order of Commissioner (Appeals) was in favour of the assessee, on merits, and it was remanded only for verification of documents, it was not open to the original adjudicating authority to reject the claim again on merits.

5. The earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged by the Revenue, but their appeal was dismissed either under litigation policy or as infructuous, thus giving finality to the order of Commissioner (Appeals).

6. In this scenario, the observations made by the appellate authority in the prese

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nt impugned order cannot be faulted upon. In view of the foregoing, I find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly Revenue's appeals are rejected.
O R