9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal, dated 30-6-2002/9-7-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the Order-in-Original of the A.C. dated 6-4-1998 who ordered appropriation of Rs. 1,23,690/- on account of interest payment, from the refund claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- of the appellants. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The adjudicating authority sanctioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest under Section 11AA of the Act. The Tribunal also while affirming those orders did not order the recovery of interest from the appellants on the disallowed Modvat credit. Therefore, the adjudicating authority could not legally order recovery of the interest from the payment of the disputed amount, on the delayed payment of the credit amount disallowed to the appellants and appropriation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to that. Therefore, the adjudicating authority, under these circumstances, ordered the recovery of interest from the appellants and appropriation of the same from the refund claim. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also wrongly endorsed and affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that he, after referring to the above detaile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side. No recovery and appropriation of the disputed amount by way of interest, from the refund claim of the appellants, could be legally ordered by the adjudicating authority or by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
