9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se circumstances, the amount confirmed by the order dated 31.5.2010 and 20.1.2011 are in dispute, therefore, during the pendency of the appeal filed by the appellant, the same cannot be adjusted against the rebate claim. The dues against the order dated 31.5.2010 and 20.1.2011 cannot be adjusted against the rebate claim filed by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /10-11 dated 20.01.2011. The appellant is aggrieved from the said order and filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as regards order dated 2.6.2008, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) himself has granted the waiver of pre-deposit vide his order dated 26.8.2008 and the same was finally decided in favour of the assessee by the authority below. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the higher forum, therefore, he has rightly adjusted the amount. 5. Heard the parties. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the demand pertaining to order dated 2.6.2008 has been stayed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 26.8.2008 wherein waiver of pre-deposit has been granted. In that circumstances, the amount cannot be adjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed by the order dated 31.5.2010 and 20.1.2011 are in dispute, therefore, during the pendency of the appeal filed by the appellant, the same cannot be adjusted against the rebate claim. 8. In these circumstances, I hold that the impugned order deserve no merit, therefore, the same is set aside. Further, I hold that the dues against the order dated 31.5.2010 and 20.1.2011 cannot be adjusted ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
