9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the denial of refund of Rs. 50,000/-. The brief facts are that, the appellants were required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,06,341/- vide order-in-original dated 8-5-2000 along with payment of Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty imposed on the appellants and Rs. 5,000/- as personal penalty on Shri R.K. Agarwal. The above amounts, which were already paid, were appropriated by the adjudicating authority. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, the original adjudicating authority vide order dated 22-3-2001 rejected the refund claim saying that, there is no categoric finding in the order-in-appeal dated 24-11-2000 to grant refund of the said amount. The order-in-appeal No. RJB/MII/124/2001, dated 30-5-2001, which is impugned before the Tribunal, did not accept the appellant s plea. Hence the instant, appeal to the Tribunal. 3. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has failed to make out a case for recovery of this amount from the appellants. Since the said amount has been voluntarily paid and it is deposited, the appellants are entitled to the refund of the said amount along with interest payable thereto in accordance with the law. 6. The appeal is allowed and consequently the impugned orders of the lower authorities are set aside. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
