JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

1. This appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (CEA, for short), is preferred against the order of the CESTAT dated 14.07.2023.

2. The appellant is a partnership concern represented by Sri Jugal Kishore Mahanta. The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh and the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

3. Brief facts of this appeal are that during its usual course of business, the appellant/assessee filed Central Excise returns before the appropriate authority and claimed refund of duty paid in terms of Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007, paid through PLA Account, after availing CENVAT Credit, to which the appellant (also referred to as the assessee) was entitled. The respondent No. 3, however issued a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 30.07.2013, with allegations that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit of CENVAT duty including Education cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Cess to the tune of Rs. 35,34,992/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Two Only) during the period from July, 2012 to May, 2013, in contravention to the provisions of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and therefore, the said amount of CENVAT Credit procured by the appellant is to be disallowed. The appellant was directed to submit reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and to appear before the respondent No. 3 for personal hearing, failing which, the respondent No. 3 would decide the case on basis of available records. The appellant submitted a detailed reply, justifying his stance, relating to the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 30.07.2013 and inter alia, submitted that Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, is specific and unequivocal to the effect that an invoice issued by a manufacturer is sufficient to claim CENVAT Credit. The appellant made a prayer before the respondent No. 3 to drop the proceedings, sought to be initiated against him. The appellant also appeared before the respondent No. 3 on the date fixed for personal hearing.

4. After hearing the appellant, the jurisdictional authority, i.e., the respondent No. 3, vide its Order No. 03/Addl. Commr./ADJ/BT/CE/COMMR./DIB/13-14 dated 29.01.2014, was pleased to drop the proceedings, sought to be initiated against the appellant, observing that “since no other issue was involved in the instant case, the case is liable to be dropped in accordance with the various judgments, cited by the appellant”. The respondent No. 3 then, preferred an appeal against his own Order-in-Original (OIO, for short) dated 29.1.2014, before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) at Guwahati. The Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, vide an Order-In-Appeal No. 119/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/14 dated 24.11.2014, set aside the OIO dated 29.01.2014, and, thereafter, a Corrigendum was issued on 29.12.2014 by the Commissioner (Appeals), rectifying the order dated 29.01.2014.

5. It is contended by the appellant that appeal against the OIO was filed, but without hearing the appellant, the orders dated 24.11.2014 and 29.12.2014 were passed. This impelled the appellant to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 24.11.2014 and 29.12.2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order dated 17.07.2017, in WP(C) No. 3527/2017, the impugned order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure VI of the petition) and the corrigendum dated 29.12.2014 (Annexure-VII of the petition) were set aside and quashed, with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to afford opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to pass a fresh speaking order in the concerned appeal. Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, and produced all the relevant records and made submissions in support of his case, but the appellate authority d