9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty, they filed refund claim - The refund claim was sanctioned but same was adjusted against a demand confirmed against the appellant vide order-in-original No. 6/CE/Comm/BK/RTK/2011, dated 3-5-2011 on the ground that the confirmed demand is pending against the appellant and the same is adjusted - Held that: - the demand of ₹ 2,26,34,220/- has been stayed by this Tribunal, in that circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (J) Shri Dinesh Verma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Bhatnagar, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim was adjusted pending demand against the appellant. 2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking and engaged in the activity of electricity transmission to the State of Haryana. As transmissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant of ₹ 2,26,34,220/- has been stayed by this Tribunal vide Stay Order No. 402/2012-EX(BR), dated 27-2-2012. Therefore, there is no confirmed demand is pending against the appellant. In that circumstances, the refund claim be sanctioned to the appellant and cannot be adjusted, as there is no such confirmed demand at present against the appellant. He also submits that the stay order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion given by this Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the authorities below is contrary to law. In that circumstances, same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with direction to the adjudicating authority to give the refund claim of the appellant within fifteen days on receipt of the order. 7. Order be given dasti. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
