9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S.G. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Prahlad Singh, Adv. Mr. V.C. Bharathi, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. H.R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Alka Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Sarita Gautam, Adv. Mr. Raghvender Rao, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. S Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel Mr. Bagaria submitted that although the dispute between the parties was adjudicated before the respective authorities and ultimately the Tribunal has held in favour of the respondent-assessee, which is assailed by the Revenue in these appeals, nevertheless, the assessee has paid the excise duty of Rs. 3,96,30,288.68 demanded under the five Show Cause Notices, impugned by the assessee, "under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is not at all prejudiced in view of the fact that the respondent-assessee is not seeking any refund of the amount paid under protest even on the premise that it would be successful in these appeals. Therefore, the appeals could be disposed of accordingly. By way of response, learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue submitted that if the statement of learned senior counsel made on instructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by learned senior counsel to the fact that the assessee would not claim refund of the said amount, we find that the Revenue would not in any way be prejudiced if the submission of assessee is accepted, the appeals would not call for further consideration at the hands of this Court. Secondly, insofar as the demand of Rs. 14,27,384/- is concerned, which is towards facility charges, without going i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
