2011 (7) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter hearing both the sides, it is seen that certain goods were seized by the officers but left in the custody of the appellants. They utilised the same without payment of duty. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them for confirmation of demand along with other facts like confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties etc. The matter travelled up to Tribunal and Tribunal directed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ants submits that they are not aggrieved with the action of lower authorities to adjust the confirmed demand against the refund claims. However, for such adjustments, re-quantification of demands is required to be done by the proper officer. Admittedly, it has not been done in terms of the earlier remand order of the Tribunal and re-quantification by Commissioner (Appeals), in the present appeal p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... des, I agree with the learned advocate. When the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal to the lower authorities, there should have been a separate order quantifying the demands against the appellants. Without such re-quantification having been done by the Revenue, I fully agree with the learned advocate that adjustment of the dues in the first order, against the sanctioned refund claims, was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X