9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri S. Nunthuk, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,88,429/- on 24.3.2014 in consequence of a favourable order by Commissioner (Appeals). The said claim was processed and duly sanctioned by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide his order dated 13.06.2014. However, after sanctioning refund, he ordered appropriation of the said amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) at the time of appropriation order by the Original Authority. In fact, the long delay in disposal of stay/appeal pending with the Commissioner (Appeals) is not attributable to the appellant. The appeal filed in Feb., 2014 was decided only in Feb.2016. There was no decision on the stay application during this period. He contended that coercive action of recovery ordered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce any stay order against the confirmed demand and as such, the original authority has followed the Boards instructions dated 1.1.2013 and ordered such appropriation. 4. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of the appeal records, I find that at the time of appropriation by the Original Authority, the appeal against the confirmed demand was very much pending with the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, the appellants appeal against the demand is pending with the Tribunal and no coercive action could be possible during the pendency of such appeal. However, the appropriation as ordered in June, 2014, during the pendency of the appeal, itself is not justifiable in view of the reasons stated above. 5.The Tribunal in 2009 (247) ELT 512 (Tribunal-Delhi) and Jay Kay Synthetics - 2002 (145) ELT 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
