SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 398

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
FAIZAN TEXTURISING – Appellant
Versus
CGST & Central Excise Vadodara II – Respondent
E/10117/2024



##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

WEST ZONAL BENCH : AHMEDABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2

EXCISE Appeal No. 10117 of 2024-SM

[ Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-228-2023-24 dated 20.09.2023

passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara]

M/s. Faizan Texturising …. Appellant

Unit-II, Plot No. 1705/A, GIDC Estate, Ankleshwar,

Distt. Bharuch - 393002

VERSUS

Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara .... Respondent

First Floor, Annex, GST Bhavan, Race Course Circle,

Vadodara-390 007 Gujarat

APPEARANCE :

Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate for the Appellant

Smt. Sunita Menon, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2026

DATE OF DECISION: 29.01.2026

FINAL ORDER NO. 10052/2026

DR. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA :

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the

impugned Order-in-Appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-228-2023-24 dated

20.09.2023 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise,

Vadodara.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that two Show Cause Notices dated

31.03.2008 and 07.04.2008 were issued to the appellant and both the Show

Cause Notices were confirmed vide Orders-in-Original dated 10.03.2014.

Aggrieved with this Order-in-Original dated 10.03.2014, the appellant filed

appeal before the Tribunal and the Bench vide order dated 07.07.2015

remanded the matter for re-adjudication. In de-novo proceedings, the

Adjudicating Authority again confirmed the demand of both the Show Cause

##PAGE2##

2

Appeal No. E/10117/2024-SM

Notices vide Orders-in-Original dated 29.12.2016. The appellant again

preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.

A/10320-10323/2022 and A/10324-10327/2022 both dated 11.04.2022 set-

aside both the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential

relief. Accordingly, the appellant vide letter dated 26.07.2022 filed a refund

application of deposit amount of Rs. 28,60,546/- which included pre-deposit

of Rs. 5,94,000/-. The appellant submitted xerox copies of challans, Orders

of the Tribunal with their refund claim. However, as per verification by the

Range Officer, Range-II, Division IX, Ankleshwar, the refund of pre-deposit

of Rs. 5,82,000/- was sanctioned. Refund of Rs. 3,27,153/- which was paid

voluntary by the appellant and appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority

vide Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2016 was also sanctioned. The

remaining amount of Rs. 19,51,393/- was not sanctioned as the Range

Superintendent vide his letter dated 08.08.2022 reported that due to non-

legibility of the TR-6 challans, the payment made by the appellant in respect

of the said challans cannot be ascertained. The department also approached

Bank of Baroda, Surat and Ankleshwar, vide letter dated 29.08.2022 to

ascertain the genuineness of the challans from their record. The Bank of

Baroda informed that such records are not available with them as the period

of retention of record for TDS/Challans/ various returns, submitted to tax

authorities is 10 years only. On the basis of the reply of Bank of Baroda, the

Adjudicating Authority entertained a view that they are not sure whether the

payments made by the appellant are in respect of the present case or

otherwise. Accordingly, out of total claim of Rs. 28,60,546/- only Rs.

9,09,153/- was sanctioned and the remaining claim of Rs. 19,51,393/- was

rejected by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 11B of the Central

Excise Act, 1944. Interest on the refund amount, as claimed by the

appellant under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also not

sanctioned. Aggrieved with the said order passed by learned Adjudicating

Authority, the appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner

(Appeals).

2.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals), considering the CESTAT order,

Circular No. 984/02/2014-CX dated 16.08.2014 and the provisions of

Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allowed the refund claim partly

for Rs. 18,04,031/- (Rs. 15,04,031/- + Rs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top