9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er - Deposit under a wrong head also goes to the Revenue only and as such it cannot be concluded that the appellant had not deposited the said interest. The penalty was directed to be reduced to 25% - appellant would be entitled to the refund of pre-deposit of ₹ 4 lakhs made by them in terms of the said order of the Tribunal - appeal allowed. - E/87505/13 - A/91821/2017 - Dated:- 15-12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould get reduced to 25%. 2. After the passing of the said order, the appellant deposited the interest along with 25% penalty. It may be noted here that during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant had deposited an amount of ₹ 4 lakhs as a condition of hearing of their appeal. 3. As a consequence of the Tribunal s final order, the appellant claimed the refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the said order passed by the Tribunal. Learned Advocate also submits that the Revenue has not disputed the deposit of interest and the only ground is that the same was deposited in a wrong head. In such a scenario, the denial of reduced penalty of 25% should not have been done. 6. After hearing the learned AR, I find that admittedly the appellant deposited the interest within a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
