2008 (1) TMI 740

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . [Order]. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the revenue. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of issue of notice. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the respondent filed refund claims consequent upon the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their favour. The respondent debited the duty/penalty at their own, which were appropriated by the depar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lty at their own in respect of Appeal No. 338/05 in other seven cases, the amounts were appropriated by the department. Thus, it is revealed from the record that the respondent deposited the amount, as pre-deposit against the pending appeals. The issue has been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. ITC Limited reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X