9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as the appeal both can be disposed of simultaneously. Therefore, I proceed to decide accordingly. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, dated 24-2-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original, dated 10-10-2001 of the adjudicating authority disallowing the refund of Rs. 59,000/- to the appellants of which they mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der by the Commissioner (Appeals) took the credit in their PLA of Rs. 59,000/-. The Department, however, served them a show cause notice for recovery of that amount on the ground that they were required to file a regular refund application. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of that amount with penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order with modificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e effect is the law laid down in the case of Vimal Alloys v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2002 (48) RLT 550 (T). In face of this position of the law, the appellants had rightly taken the credit of the amount of Rs. 59,000/- in their PLA after the passing of the favourable order in their favour by the Commissioner (Appeals) under whose orders they initially made the deposit when they challenged the order-in-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
