9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - he instant appeal was filed by the appellant against rejection of refund of Rs. 1,30,807/-. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief are that, by an order-in-original dated 1-8-1997, the demand of duty of Rs. 9,95,553/- was confirmed against the appellant. By stay order dated 30-4-1998, the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur directed the appellant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that there is no dispute that this amount was deposited by the appellant as pre-deposit, and, therefore, the adjudicating authority cannot adjust the amount against another penalty which was pending before the Tribunal and subsequently the Tribunal issued the stay order in favour of the assessee. He relied upon the following decisions :- (1) National Steel Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y time bar factor. He also observed that the provision of unjust enrichment was also not applicable in the instant case as the claim pertains to the amount of Modvat credit and also deposit of TR 6 challan. The adjudicating authority further observed that the refund is liable to be sanctioned to the appellant but the same to be appropriated against the outstanding arrears against the appellants. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge in appeal and his application for stay is also pending consideration before the Appellate Authority. Under the circumstance it cannot be said that the amount has become recoverable or due from him." 6. The ratio of the above decisions are squarely applicable in this case and as such, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal, I set aside the order of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
