2004 (2) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. The appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (A) who in the impugned order held that the appellants before him were entitled for refund of Rs. 10,07,661/-. 2. The Revenue s contention in the appeal is that the respondents did not file any appeal against the order of the Commissioner who fixed the A.C.P. and they had discharged their duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. The Revenue s main contention is that the Commissioner (A) should not have allowed the refund when the Commissioner s order fixing ACP was operational and was not set aside by a higher judicial forum. In fact this view was rightly taken by the Deputy Commissioner in his order rejecting the refund claim. The ld. Commissioner (A) has not even dealt with this aspect. The Revenue s contention tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X