9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 99/SVS/GGN/2014 dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s Saurer Embroidery System (India) Ltd. were registered with Central Excise for manufacture of embroidery falling under chapter 5805.19 which attracted central excise duty till 09.07.2004, afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was Rs. 3,01,820/-) originally filed by the respondent under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the refund claim did not satisfy the conditions of Section 11B ibid. The respondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgoan against the referred Refund Order for the amount of claim rejected by the department. The Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed in compliance of O-I-A No. 325/BK/GGN/2010 dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the department has preferred appeal before CESTAT against the O-I-A. (ii) Since the earlier appeal of the department is pending with CESTAT in the subject case the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed the judicial discipline in complying the order of higher authorities and the case sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are unable to uphold the contention of the Counsel appearing for the respondents. Till a stay order obtained by the respondents, mere filing of the appeal before the Tribunal did not result in granting an automatic stay order in favour of the respondents. If the respondents so desired, they should have prayed for the stay of the order of the Appellate Collector, in the absence of which the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
