fiogf49gjkf0d
Once the refund is allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) by speaking order, it is not open to adjudicating authority to revisit the refund claim on meritsFacts
The Appellant filed 3 refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit availed on input services in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. The said claims were consequential refund claims arising out of Order-in- Appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had ordered the Original Authority to grant refund. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that they failed to declare in their ER-2 Returns the details of availment of CENVAT credit on input services and also failed to furnish the documents in support of their claim. It was contended that matter was remanded back with a direction to sanction refund claim and thus it was not within the power of the adjudicating authority to revisit the case and reject refund claim without filing any appeal to higher appellate authority. The First Appellate authority upheld the order rejecting the refund. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
Held
Hon’ble Tribunal observed that Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a speaking order granting refund and nothing was left for the lower authority to revisit the merits of the case. It was held that the lower authorities did not follow the judicial discipline as without contesting the order of Commissioner (Appeals) before higher judicial authority, it was not open for them to reject the refund claims by again getting into the merits of the case when the same is already dealt with by the superior authority. Appeal was therefore allowed.
