9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants successfully contested the order of the original authority and preferred claim for consequential relief. The appellants had canvassed sanction of the claim before the original authority and challenged the rejection of the claim before the Commissioner (Appeals) - applications for condonation of delay dismissed. - C/20-25/2009 - 378-383/2009 - Dated:- 6-4-2009 - Shri P. Karthikeyan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 3. C/22/2009 8/2008 dt. 28-8-2008 75,000/- 25,000/- 4. C/23/2009 8/2008 dt. 28-8-2008 2,00,000/- 50,000/- 5. C/24/2009 10/2008 dt. 28-8-2008 80,000/- 30,000/- 6. C/25/2009 10/2008 dt. 28-8-2008 1,80,000/- 45,000/- The facts of the case are that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity which had been vacated by the Commissioner (Appeals). The said order was under challenge before the Tribunal when he decided the case for refund. In the order impugned, the Commissioner (Appeals) has sustained similar orders of the original authority rejecting the refund claim. The instant appeals seek to vacate the above orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The application for condonat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred claim for consequential relief. The appellants had canvassed sanction of the claim before the original authority and challenged the rejection of the claim before the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned orders advised the party in the Preamble that an appeal has to be filed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the said order before the CESTAT if they felt aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
