9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was denied for non-submission of the original TR 6 challan. 2. The facts of the case are that by way of adjudication, a demand of Rs. 18,50,675/- along with interest was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 2,500/- was also imposed against the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the stay application and directed the appellant to pre-deposit the amount demanded as a condition for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the case of refund, attested Xerox Copy of the Challan in Form T.R.6 is sufficient and there is no requirement to file the original TR-6 challan. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Narayan Nambiar Meloths vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2010 (25 1) ELT 57 (Ker.). Therefore, the reason for denying of refund claim is not sustainable. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case law relied on by the learned AR is not relevant to the facts of the case. In fact, in the case of (India Cements Ltd. supra) the duty was paid under protest and in the case the amount has been paid as per-deposit as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, any amount paid as a condition for hearing of appeal cannot be held as the payment of duty paid under protest. Therefore, relyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
