9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, there cannot be any justification to uphold part of the demand, only on the ground that it has been paid up by the assessee. Such a decision cannot have any legal sanctity and is not supported by law. This being so, the remnant demand of ₹ 4,29,107/- upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) will also not sustain and set aside. The cross objection succeeds to that extent. Appeal disposed off. - ST/Cross/41648/2013 and ST/40723/2013 - Final Order No. 40469/2019 - Dated:- 7-3-2019 - SHRI MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER And SHRI P. DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For Appellant: Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) For Respondent: Shri V. Ravindran, Advocate ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation of ₹ 4,29,107/- in the impugned order on the grounds that when the notice has been held as non-maintainable, part of the demand cannot be confirmed only on the ground that it has been paid up by the assessee. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, Ld. AR reiterated the grounds of appeal. 3.1 On the other hand, Ld. Advocate submits that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding non-maintainability of the appeal is correct in all respects. However, he also reiterated the ground of cross-objection field by them and prays that even the remnant amount of ₹ 4,29,107/- may also be set aside. 3.2. Ld. Advocate also places reliance on Final Order No.40816-40860/2017 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial accommodation enjoyed by the appellant, is payable on the above amount. 5.2. We also find that the Tribunal s earlier decision in a batch of cases in CCE ST, Pondicherry Vs. C.Vadivelu and Others, (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Advocate is also applicable on all fours to the present dispute. In view thereof, no merit is found in the Revenue appeal, for which reason it is dismissed. 6. Coming to the cross-objections filed by the respondents, we find merit in the contentions therein that when the SCN itself has been held as non-maintainable, there cannot be any justification to uphold part of the demand, only on the ground that it has been paid up by the assessee. Such a decision cannot have an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
