ORDER D.N. Patel, J. - Counsel for the appellant is present, however, counsel for the respondents is absent. 2. It appears from the facts of the case that the refund application was preferred by the respondent for Rs. 7,70,889.48 on 4-10-2006 on account of double payment of the duty on the same goods. 3. It further appears from the facts of the case that the refund application was rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-IV, Jamshedpur, mainly on the grounds that looking to the provisions of Section 12(B) of the Central Excise Act, there is presumption that incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer. This burden has not been discharged by the applicant (who is the respondent in this tax appeal). 4. The appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner ( Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi and the appellate authority remanded the matter to the lower authority to supply the documents needed by the respondent and thereafter pass a fresh order after re-examining the refund claim and after giving personal hearing to the respondent, who was the appellant before the Commissioner ( Appeals). This order was passed on 23rd April, 2009 by the Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in-Appeal No. 52/JSR/2009. 5. Against this remand order, appeal was preferred by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur before CESTAT, Kolkata, East Zonal Bench. The appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28-10-2009, being Order No. A-659/KOL/2009. 6. It appears that this appeal was absolutely unnecessarily preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, has preferred Appeal No. 431 of 2009. instead of re-examining the refund claim. Again, Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur has preferred this Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2010. All these time should have been invested in re-examining the claim of refund of the assessee, under Section 12B of the Central Excise Tax, 1944 which is about the presumption of passing on incidence of tax. All care should have been taken by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur. Such type of frivolous tax appeal may not be preferred at the behest of Commissioner, Central Excise and whenever the matter is remanded, the claim of the concerned manufacturer/assessee should have been decided at the earliest without any loss of time. Court proceedings are being misused by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, initially before CESTAT, Kolkata and thereafter before this Court. Court proceedings are being misused by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur, initially before CESTAT, Kolkata and thereafter before this Court. 7. Accordingly, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.