9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n recorded by the department in the SCN and also in the OIO, the rejection of an amount of Rs. 4,17,636/- on the ground that the appellant did not produce proof of payment is not sustainable - E/498/2006 - 1280/2007 - Dated:- 12-11-2007 - Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri V.J. Sankaram, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 127/97 dated 27-5-1997. However, the appellant agitated the matter. The matter reached CEGAT and the CEGAT remanded the matter to the Commissioner. Second time also that amount which they had paid was confirmed and penalties also were imposed on the appellants. Again the appellants approached CESTAT and this Bench in the Final Order 199/2004 dated 10-2-2005 allowed the appeal of the assessee wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not correct on the part of the Revenue to reject the refund claim on the ground that proof was not produced. He said that the department should be in a position to verify the PLA entries and grant the refund. He also pointed out that after a period of 10 years from the date of payment of the amount, it would be too much for the department to expect the appellant to keep all the records. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reference 11,58,943.00 1157 dt. 29-10-96 Assessee's Letter No. TEX/9/106 dated 31-3-97 13,940.39 2049 dt. 08-1-97 1,98,188.68 2234 dt. 28-1-97 6,388.00 2400 dt. 1-2-97 1,99,119. 11 2413 dt. 3-2-97 32,936.75 2640 dt. 6-3-97 4,49,857.69 Challan No. 222/96-97 Dt. 31-3-97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
