9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord and the same has been recorded in the SCN itself. In that circumstance case, the appellant was entitled for the refund claim of ₹ 4,66,35,243/- but the authorities below has sanctioned a claim of ₹ 3,66,35,243/- which is incorrect. In fact the appellant is still entitled for refund of ₹ 1 crore which was required to be refunded in pursuance of the order of this Tribunal dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to be denied and the matter was adjudicated, the demand of duty was confirmed. It was the contention of the appellant that they have paid a sum of ₹ 4 crores by way of three TR-6 challans i.e. ₹ 2 crore vide TR-6 challan dated 1.7.2002 for the period 2001-02, ₹ 1 crore vide TR-6 chalan dated 19.2.2003 for the period 2001-02 and ₹ 1 crore vide TR-6 challan dated 19.2.2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed the refund claim in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal dated 15.5.2006 on 9.6.2006 for a refund of ₹ 1 crore. The Tribunal while entertaining the stay application has confirmed the fact that the appellant has paid a sum of ₹ 4,66,35,243/-. In arbitrary manner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. On going through the records of the case, we find that although in the adjudication order dated 27.10.2004 an amount of ₹ 3,66,35,243/- was appropriated but the show cause notice in question has already confirmed the fact that the appellant has paid ₹ 4 crore and ₹ 66,35,243/- was extra deposited which was carried f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
