9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. RS/34/SRT-II/2006 dated 19-1-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : (a) There was a demand of duty of Rs. 91,609/- confirmed by the original authority vide his order dated 8-1-95. (b) The company paid duty on 19-9-97. (c) Meanwhile, they filed appeal with Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty on them. (f) The original authority vide his order dated 12-12-03 held that the assessee had correctly taken the credit of Rs. 91,609/- holding that no application is required for refund of pre-deposit of duty amount paid after passing of the order in favour of the assessee by the appellate authority. (g) On Department s appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 19- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority by his order dated 8-10-95 confirmed the demand of 91,609/- the same became payable unless otherwise stayed by the Commissioner (Appeals). They have paid the said amount on 19-9-97. This payment was not due to any order of pre-deposit made by the Commissioner (Appeals). In other words, what has been paid was the duty amount duly confirmed by the original authority. 6.2 The assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the assessee should have sought the refund to enable the competent authority consider the same and sanction as per law and if there was any delay in the sanction of the refund, the law provides for payment of interest as per law. The question of assessee taking suo motu a refund of duty paid by them is highly objectionable and is not permitted by the law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
