9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RATORIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ROHTAK [2008 (6) TMI 417 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that where the stay has been extended till disposal of appeal, and not for a limited period, it is none of the business of the Department to insist on payment of duty etc., which is subject matter of the appeal, and any action on the part of officer will be seriously viewed by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipments and is a public sector undertaking. They filed a refund claim of ₹ 1,47,24,880/consequent to finalization of provisional assessment during the financial year 2003-04 to 2006-07 vide ACCE's Orders No.27 to 30/2010 dt. 10/11/2010 and this was accepted by the Review Section in the HQ of Bangalore-I Commissionerate. Consequently a refund application was filed by ITI Ltd. before ACCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,24,880/- should be paid within two months in cash. Thereafter a refund application was once again filed by ITI before ACCE, Bangalore who sanctioned the refund but adjusted against Order-in-Original No. 19/2008 dt 31/10/2008 passed by CCE, Bangalore. Thereafter the ITI filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2018 dt. 12/01/2018 passed strictures against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been sanctioned and the Department has filed the present appeal. He further submitted that when the ITI has filed appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 19/2008 dt. 31/10/2008 passed by the CCE, Bangalore and the same is pending before the Tribunal and has not attained finality. He further submitted that in view of the pendency of the said appeal, the adjustment of demands against an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
