Revenue Unaware that their Appeal Filed in year 2000 had been Dismissed Seven Years Ago
IT is now clear that the Revenue formations do not keep a track of the fate of the appeals filed by them before the CESTAT. For had that been so, we would not have had the opportunity to report the cases 2012-TIOL-625-CESTAT-MUM, 2012-TIOL-1047-CESTAT-MUM, 2012-TIOL-1738-CESTAT-MUM & 2012-TIOL-1889-CESTAT-MUM. In all these cases, the Revenue had filed an early hearing application without knowing that their appeals had been dismissed long ago and the Bench had to inform the Revenue representative about the same.
In fact, we would have been glad had the first Circular that came out of the Circular Machine in the Board in the New Year was directed to these silly and unwanted EH applications which occupy considerable parking space in the CESTAT registry already burdened with more than 70,000 pending appeals.
The present case is one more of such instances where valuable time and energy is wasted of the Bench. As for the department, they have ample time at their disposal.
Brief facts are that the assessee had filed a refund claim in pursuance of a favourable order-in-appeal dated 20.07.2000 and the same was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved, the Revenue had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but this appeal was dismissed on 31.05.2004.
Against this O-in-A dated 31.05.2004, the Revenue is before the CESTAT.
During the hearing held on 05.09.2012, the Revenue representative submitted that the adjudicating authority should not have sanctioned the refund but awaited the order of the CESTAT in the matter of the appeal filed by the Revenue against the O-in-A dated 20.07.2000. Inasmuch since the issue had not been settled, the sanction of refund is not sustainable, submitted the AR.
The Bench informed the Revenue representative that the Tribunal vide Final order dated 23.11.2005 had already dismissed the appeal no. E/3229/00 filed by the Revenue against the O-in-A no. SDK(178)178/AUR/2000 dated 20.07.2000 and hence there is no infirmity in the impugned O-in-A dated 31.05.2004. Resultantly, the present appeal was also dismissed.
Had only the CCE, Nashik asked his officers to spend some time on the case file, all this frivolous exercise could have been avoided long back and the pending case could have been erased off the record in the year 2005 itself. Probably, the demand for erroneously granted refund may also be lying somewhere!
But then...this is how the department works!
(See )