9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice. There are no findings found as far as the merits of the proposed demand are concerned in the said final order. The parties were directed to maintain the status quo. Though the said order stands set aside, in view of the order of this Tribunal in SHREE KRISHNA PAPER MILLS INDUS. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.) , JODHPUR [ 2019 (3) TMI 829 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , it is observed that the impugned application seeking refund of Rs. 2.5 crores was filed prior to filing the said miscellaneous application seeking rectification. Hence the application is observed to be in violation of the directions of status quo of order dated 11.8.2017 as were live on 17.9.2017, the date of the application for refund. It is also observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed vide order in original No. 04/2017 dated 28.2.2017. The appeal against the said order was filed before this Tribunal. Vide Final Order No. 55924-55929/2017 dated 11.08.2017 , the appeal was allowed by way of remand directing the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s Mangli Impex Ltd. After the said final order that the impugned application for refund dated 7.9.2017 seeking refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2.5 crores was filed. 2. At this stage, learned Departmental Representative brought to the notice that this Tribunal vide the aforesaid final order had also directed for maintaining status quo till the final dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oposal of duty demand along with penalty in show cause notice dated 4.9.2006 was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority, but only for the purpose of jurisdiction of the officer issuing the show cause notice. There are no findings found as far as the merits of the proposed demand are concerned in the said final order. The parties were directed to maintain the status quo. Though the said order stands set aside, in view of the order of this Tribunal dated 28.01.2019, we observe that the impugned application seeking refund of Rs. 2.5 crores was filed prior to filing the said miscellaneous application seeking rectification. Hence the application is observed to be in violation of the directions of status quo of order dated 11.8.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of deposit at the investigation stage cannot be considered as pre-deposit. The earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sky Airways Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi 2002 (8) TMI 1008 CESTAT New Delhi is brought to the notice by the learned Departmental Representative. We observe that following has been held. 8. The appellant had not deposited the amount towards the pre-deposit and in any view of the matter the Tribunal had even after setting aside the order appealed against remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo. The appellant was bound by this order of status quo passed by the Tribunal and could not have asked for the refund of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
