Electronics Technology Parks Kerala Park Centre Vs Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)
The appeal concerned a refund claim of Rs. 4,57,01,329. The appellant had initially filed a refund application before the Adjudicating Authority, which rejected the claim. The appellant’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed, with the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Adjudicating Authority’s order. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Subsequently, Notification No. 41/2016 dated 22.09.2016 exempted such lease provided by the State Government with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007. Following the notification, the appellant filed another refund application, which was allowed by an order dated 20.02.2018. As a result, the impugned order became infructuous.
The appellant thereafter filed a miscellaneous application seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the appellant. The Tribunal considered the miscellaneous application, allowed the request for withdrawal, and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The order was pronounced in open court on 07.04.2025.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
The issue in the present appeal is regarding refund of Rs. 4,57,01,329/-. Appellant filed a refund claim before the Adjudication Authority and adjudication authority rejected the refund claim. Therefore, Appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudication Authority. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed before this Tribunal. Thereafter, when Notification No. 41/2016 dated 22.09.02016 issued exempting such lease provided by State Government with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007, another refund application was filed and it is allowed vide Order dated 20.02.2018. Accordingly, the impugned order is infructuous. Today, a miscellaneous application is filed by the appellant for withdrawing the appeal.
2. When the appeal came up for hearing, None appeared for the appellant. As per the miscellaneous application, appellant requested for withdrawing the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. Considering the above, miscellaneous application is allowed and the appeal is disposed as withdrawn.
(Order pronounced in open court on 07.04.2025)
