SHARDA CROPCHEM LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is listed for maintainability under newly inserted Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 86 of Finance Act, 1994. In this case, initially, the refund claim was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority on appeal filed by the Revenue and the same has been set aside by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Against the said order, the appellant is in appeal before us. As the refund claim sanctioned to the appellant has been set aside therefore, the Registry has listed the matter for maintainability under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 86 of Finance Act, 1994.

(2.) WE have gone through the provisions of newly inserted Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 86 of Finance Act, 1994. In the said provisions, the refund claim already sanctioned is not a subject matter. Therefore, the requirement of pre -deposit of 7.5% of the duty does not arise. With these observations, we hold that the appeal is maintainable before this Tribunal. Registry is directed to list the appeal in due course.