9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - also aggrieved by the sanction of 30,00,000/- though partially appropriated - HELD THAT:- No appeal had been filed by Revenue before the first appellate authority against the sanction of 30,00,000/-. Accordingly, that sanction cannot be agitated before the Tribunal in an appeal arising from a decision of the first appellate authority on challenge by the assessee. It is seen that the sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER: C J MATHEW Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad has filed this appeal against order-in-appeal no. (147)112/2011 dated 5th August 2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad which upheld the appropriation of ₹ 26,86,071 from the amount of ₹ 30,00,000/- sanctioned by the original authority while also sanctioning refund of ₹ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand proposed in show cause notice dated 5th March 2009. The reversal of this rejection in appeal and the upholding of the order of appropriation by the first appellate authority is impugned before us. 3. It is submitted that the dispute pertaining to the duty, towards which ₹ 26,86,071/- had been appropriated and sustained by first appellate authority, was brought before the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen that the sanction of ₹ 20,12,525/- is a consequence of the finding by the first appellate authority that such deposit had been effected in relation to the show cause notice dated 5th March 2009. Those proceeding culminated in the order of the first appellate authority dated 6th September 2010 setting aside the demand. That matter, on appeal of Revenue, had come up before the Tribunal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
