9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants. Shri M.N, Biswas, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : K. Sankararainan, Member (T)]. - Shri. N. Mookherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, the Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur, submitted that in this case the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, while sanctioning a refund claim in respect of Coke Oven Gas, amounting to Rs. 3,34,822.67 pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated was based on correct application of Section 11 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, as spelt out in the order-in-appeal. He pleaded that the appeal may be dismissed. 3. We have considered the arguments from both sides. We have also gone through the impugned order-in-appeal and also the order of the Tribunal cited by Shri Mookherjee. We find that the latter order is not applicable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case in the light of the above cited case, we find that, as observed by the Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order-in-appeal, the other case of the appellants pertaining to Sulphuric acid the amount in respect of which was adjusted against the refund due to them, was sub judice in the revision stage as pleaded by the appellants before him. He has also observed that so long as the original o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Collector (Appeals) that their dispute was sub judice in the revision stage, would go to show that the present case is quite different from the Rasoi case relied upon by Shri Mookherjee. In that case, as we had noted earlier, no notice had been issued before the adjustment of the dues from the refund amount which is not the case here. The non-obtaining of a stay order and the pendency of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
