9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 dated 3.6.2016, Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant observing that the appellant is entitled to cash refund to the tune of Rs. 11,03,303/. The factum of final order was intimated to the department requesting for refund of the said amount. However, the adjudicating authority passed an order dated 20.1.2017 observing that the appellant is not eligible for refund of Rs. 8,13,869/- and sanctioned only part of the amount to the tune of Rs. 2,89,487/-. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri T.R. Ramesh submitted that the very same issue as to whether the appellant is eligible for credit of Rs. 8,13,816/- was decided and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 11,03,303/-. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under for better appreciation:- "Heard both sides in the matter. The issue to be decided is as to whether the appellants are eligible for cash refund of Rs. 11,03,303/- on account of credit under transitional provisions in terms of Rule 57H of erstwhile CER 1944. In this case, it is very clear that the appellants were prevented from taking of credit due to the objections from the department and the contention of the appellant that had the department granted refund in the year 1994 itself, the appellant would not have made the payment by cash from the PLA and due to the dispute being not settled for 16 years, the appellant cannot be denied of their benefit to cash refund. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ordered to be recovered and the credit of Rs. 8,13,816/- was ordered to be adjusted against this balance amount. The ld. counsel submitted that the issue with regard to demand of Rs. 54,06,249/- has attained finality wherein the issue was held in favour of the appellant vide Order-in-Appeal No.47/2010 dated 4.8.2010 and therefore the question of adjustment of Rs. 8,13,816/- does not arise. It is very much clear that the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have floated the order passed by the Tribunal by rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. To sum up, the partial rejection of refund is against the order passed by Tribunal and therefore cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
