9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order]. - The appeal is posted for admission. 2. I have heard both sides. Prima facie, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has affirmed the Order-in-Original is against the law. Therefore, the appeal is admitted. 3. With the consent of both sides I have heard the arguments on merit also. 4. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim to be time-barred under Section 11B. 5. I have heard both the sides. From the records it is quite evident that debit entry of Rs. 38,661/- was made by the appellants in RG-23A Part II, during pendency of their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand against them by disallowing Modvat credit. Therefore, this debit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be said to be time-barred. The provisions of Sections 11B and 233B had no application to the case of the appellants. Even otherwise, the debit entry was to be taken under protest as the same was made in pursuance of the adjudication order of the adjudicating authority, which they challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) and was set aside. In Mafatlal Industries v. UOI - 1994 (72) E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
