9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant. Shri V.P. Batra, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri V.P. Batra, ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, we find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to refund of duty which stands doubly paid by the appellant. The refund claim was originally filed on 17-6-2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the documents required to be supplied by them and also observed inasmuch as they have not supplied the documents, refund claim cannot be considered for sanction. The appellant again approached the Revenue for finalization of the refund claim. After a lot of correspondence, the appellant were issued a show cause notice on 28-6-2005 proposing rejection of the refund claim. The said show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Priya Industries Ltd. as also in the case M/s. Flock (India) (P) Ltd. operate in a different circumstance. In these decisions, it stand held that when the "lis" between the assessee and the Revenue is decided against the assessee, the assessee cannot approach the revenue authority for refund of the amount involved without putting the said orders to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the earlier correspondence dated 16-6-2003 (even though there were subsequent correspondences also) was not put to challenge cannot be appreciated. Accordingly, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for consideration of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
