2009 (1) TMI 607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s filed a refund claim for Rs. 12,61,982/- which was rejected by the original adjudicating authority. On an appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and held that the respondents are eligible for the refund claim for the refund claimed by them. However, when the respondents approached the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for payment of the refund claim a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the revenue submits that the department had challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24-12-2004 which was decided by the Tribunal vide Order No. A/2502/WZB/AHD/2008 dated 26-11-2008. In this order the Tribunal had reminded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to verify the correctness of the refund amount on the basis of factual verification as to whether the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has to be set aside. Since there is no option other than this, the adjournment request by the learned advocate for the respondents has not been considered and the appeal has been taken up for consideration and allowed. Before parting it has to be stated that when the case was presented by the learned SDR it was felt that appeal filed by the revenue is infructuous. But later it was found that in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X