9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t them and on success of the same, they are entitled to the refund of such pre-deposit. It is not the Revenue’s case that there was any infirmity in the sanction of the refund claim by the original Adjudicating Authority. The only ground is that the same was not pre-audited. In the absence of any dispute about the availability of the refund claim, I find that this procedural aspect prescribed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the appellants by way of issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 30-7-2003, resulting in determination of duty of ₹ 8,01,294/- (Rupees eight lakh one thousand two hundred and ninety-four only). The said proceedings were decided against the appellants and as a result, they deposited the amount of duty in question. However, on appeal against the order passed by the lower authorities, Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 47,48,010/- (Rupees forty-seven lakh forty-eight thousand and ten only), but credited the same to the consumer welfare fund. The Revenue being aggrieved with the said order of original Adjudicating Authority challenged the sanctioning of refund of ₹ 8,01,294/- before the Commissioner (Appeals). Relying upon the Board Circular No. 809/6/2005-CX, dated 1-3-2005, he reversed the said orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on success of the same, they are entitled to the refund of such pre-deposit. It is not the Revenue s case that there was any infirmity in the sanction of the refund claim by the original Adjudicating Authority. The only ground is that the same was not pre-audited. In the absence of any dispute about the availability of the refund claim, I find that this procedural aspect prescribed by the Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
