9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as clearly erred in holding that if any dues were to be re-adjudged against the assessee at a later date, the recovery action could have been pursued in the manner prescribed under law. In other words, however, the dues were already re-adjudged by the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 12-6-2001 and, therefore, the adjudicating authority had rightly rejected the refund claim by his order dated 28-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of the entire dues vide order dated 12-3-1999. The assessees complied with the order by deposit of the amount; the appeal was finally decided by order-in-appeal dated 31-8-2000, setting aside the order-in-original and remanding the issue (of valuation) for de novo decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the rejection of the refund claim, the assessees preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal, holding that once the order-in-original dated 2-12-1998 had been set aside, the amount deposited under Section 35F order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to have been returned and if any dues were to be re adjudged again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2001 and, therefore, the adjudicating authority had rightly rejected the refund claim by his order dated 28-6-2001. 5. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 6. The cross-objections filed by the assessees are in the nature of comments on the department's appeal and are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. (Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
