9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Surbhi Enterprise Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2006 (12) TMI 25 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD ] and Nepa Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore [2002 (10) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] – filing an appeal against the order of confirmation of the demand amounts to protest and the consequential relief is liable to be granted to the assessee on the success of their appeal without raising the power of limitation. Relatability of debit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited an amount of Rs.1,32,009/- vide cenvat credit entry no.1516 dated 20.01.2001. On appeal against the order of the Asstt. Commissioner, he set aside the order-in-original passed by the original adjudicating authority and vacated the demand. However, as Commissioner (Appeals) did not mention consequent relief, appellant filed an appeal thereagainst for grant of consequential relief. Tribunal dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of around two months from the date of passing of the order-in-appeal. Revenue's contention that the limitation would start running from the date of payment of the amount is not justified inasmuch as, admittedly, the refund would arise after relief stands granted to the appellant by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).The Tribunal in the case of Surbhi Enterprise Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acto go to show that the same is not in respect of the confirmed demand. Inasmuch as, there is no allegation much less any evidence to show that the said debit entry was in respect of the some other demand, we, in the interest of justice, hold that the said debit was relatable to the demand in question and the appellant are entitled to the refund of the same. We accordingly set aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
