9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- In the case of Nelco Ltd. (2001 (1) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that in case of remand matter, Revenue is not entitled to hold on to the amount deposited by the assessee during the course of investigation as pre-deposit. The said view has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, I hold that the refund claim filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty on the basis of investigation made. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 10,47,000/- and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1.91 lakhs. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal and vide order dated 12-5-2005 this Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication. Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim on 22-9-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no confirmed demand against the appellant as on today, this amount is required to be refunded as held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Nelco Ltd. - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2002 (144) E.L.T. A104 (S.C.). In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside, refund claim be allowed. 4. On the other ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
