2003 (11) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority dismissing the refund claim of the appellants as time barred. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that since the deposit was made during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, it should be taken as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that after confirmation of the duty by the adjudicating authority the appellants made deposit of the amount of Rs. 60,510/- by debiting the same in their statutory record i.e. RG 23A Part II. The appeal of the appellants against the order of the adjudicating authority was dismissed. However, when the appellants challenged the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal for making pre-deposit, that must have been mentioned by the authorities below in their respective orders. Rather the stay application of the appellants as is evident from the impugned order-in-appeal was rejected by the Tribunal. 6. The deposit so made by the appellants cannot be accepted to have been made under protest for want of any evidence to corroborate the same. The argument of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X