9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there is no order of any Court or Tribunal staying the said order. Indisputably, the order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022 cannot be ignored by the respondents solely because according to the revenue, the said order is erroneous and is required to be set aside. The said issue is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in MR. BRIJ MOHAN MANGLA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2023 (3) TMI 327 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] where it was held that Admittedly, the appeals have not been filed by the respondents as yet. The time for preferring the appeal has also expired. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appeals would still be in time as in terms of the circular dated 03.12.2019, the time for the Department to pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod September 2017 to March, 2018. The petitioner filed another application on 09.07.2019 claiming an amount of ₹14,46,417/- as accumulated Input Tax Credit for the period April, 2018 to March, 2019. Thus, the petitioner claims an amount of ₹37,56,750/- as refund of accumulated tax. 5. The applications filed by the petitioner were acknowledged. However, thereafter two separate deficiency memos, both dated 29.11.2019, were issued. The respondent pointed out certain deficiencies and also sought certain clarifications with regard to the said applications. In addition, the respondent also called upon the petitioner to submit a Chartered Accountant s certificate confirming that the incidence of tax and interest was not passed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or refund were rejected. 8. The petitioner filed separate appeals impugning the orders-in-original dated 14.12.2020, which were disposed of by a common order dated 03.01.2022 (Order-in-appeal No.209-210/2021-2022). The Appellate Authority allowed the petitioner s appeal. It accepted that the petitioner was in existence at the material time, and the findings contrary to the same were erroneous. The Appellate Authority relied upon certain documents, including electricity bills, income tax returns etc. filed by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority also found that the Adjudicating Authority had not provided any basis for observing that the product manufactured by the petitioner required very less or no brass at all. 9. Since the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
