9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 861/2005 dated 07.10.2005 and reconcile the same. Discrepancy if any may be dealt appropriately - appeal allowed. - Appeal No.E/425 - 426/2005 - FINAL ORDER Nos. 41565-41566 / 2016 - Dated:- 22-9-2016 - Shri D.N. PANDA, Judicial Member And Shri MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, Technical Member Shri R. Parthasarathy, Adv., For the applicant Shri L. Paneer Selvam, AC (AR), For the respondent Per: D.N. Panda This matter was heard yesterday. Ld. Counsel s argument was that the amount already deposited against the demand raised by Revenue by the impugned order do not call for any further amount to be paid. This was their consistent pleading before the authorities below from 30.06.2003, praying for verification of the deposit particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,10,45,464/- in aggregate towards the demands raised by the impugned orders, that need be adjusted. The payment particulars appear at page 13 14 of the appeal paper book No. E/426/2005. Such fact is not disputed by Revenue and has been recorded in the Stay order No. 860-861/2005 dated 07.10.2005. (v) Tribunal s Stay order dated 07.10.2005 reproduced the demand statement vis-a-vis the amount already paid by appellant. That shows net amount of ₹ 26,22,862.- was payable by appellant. In fact, the appellant had calculated the amount payable by them at a higher amount than shown in the SCNs. (vi) Appellant had paid ₹ 3,00,000/- by way of pre-deposit in appeal No. E/1421/2004 which also arose out of a similar ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein remain undisputed by Revenue. 5. Looking into the length of litigation and its outcome, we do not propose to keep the matter pending further. When Tribunal s stay order prima facie made categorical finding as to discharge of the liability by appellant there is no scope to doubt further as to such deposit in absence of any evidence to the Contrary. Ld. Counsel is correct in his averment to say that even after the stay order was passed, discrepancy in deposit has not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. 6. In view of the above factual position, both the appeals are allowed and Revenue is directed to make verification of the challans stated by the ld. Counsel at page-4 of the stay order No. 860-861/2005 dated 07.10.2005 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
