9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: The appellants is aggrieved by the order dated 1.2.2016 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Bhopal. 2. The brief facts relevant to the appeal are that the appellants filed a claim for refund of Rs. 33,42,525/- with the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. The said claim was processed and sanctioned by the Original Authority vide his order dated 9.7.2014. The Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fresh adjudication. Elaborating further, on the status of each confirmed demand, ld. Counsel stated that the order-in-original no.126 dated 31.01.2013 and order-in-appeal dated 24.12.2013, on such original order was set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.53527-53529 of 2015 dated 20.11.2015 ; order-in-original no.129 dated 31.01.2013; order-in-appeal dated 24.12.2013 on such original order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was passed. 6. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 7. The admitted fact is that the Original Authority found that the refund is correctly eligible to the appellant. However, he appropriated the amount against the confirmed demands without due notice for recovery to the appellant. It is a fact that all the confirmed demands were taken up on appeal and were pending with higher a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown now by the appellant, none of the confirmed demands survive as on date. This being not disputed by Revenue also. 8. Ld. AR was specifically asked regarding status of such appropriation in the changed circumstances of the fact. He simply reiterated that the original appropriation was made correctly. The appellant is aggrieved against such appropriation. In any case, in view of non-existence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
