9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the Respondent: Shri V. Gupta, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant has filed two appeals against the impugned orders wherein in Appeal No.E/421/2010, the demand of duty has been confirmed on account of refund erroneously sanctioned to them and whereas in Appeal No.E/3701/2012, the refund amount has been adjusted by the Revenue for the demand confirmed in the impugned order in Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No.56/02-CE dt.14.11.2002. 4. Considering the fact that the Revenue has not challenged the order of sanctioning the refund claim in Appeal No.E/421/2010, therefore, in light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bharat Box Factory Limited vide Final Order No.62192-62193/2018 dt.20.3.2018, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "5. Heard the parties, considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was taken to have the order of the Assistant Commissioner revised or set aside. Having failed to avail of the statutory remedy available under the Act, the Revenue sought to circumvent the law (as it were) by taking recourse to Section 11A of the Act. In our opinion, this was clearly impermissible inasmuch as what is required to be done in a manner prescribed by law, ought to be done in that mann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
