Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 951 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHRefund claim - The appellant is paying duty on captive consumption on the activity of galvanising of bars, rods and channels as per Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, i.e., cost of raw material plus 10%. Later on, as per CAS-4 they have paid excess to the duty, they filed refund claim - The refund claim was sanctioned but same was adjusted against a demand confirmed against the appellant vide order-in-original No. 6/CE/Comm/BK/RTK/2011, dated 3-5-2011 on the ground that the confirmed demand is pending against the appellant and the same is adjusted - Held that: - the demand of ₹ 2,26,34,220/- has been stayed by this Tribunal, in that circumstances, the authorities below by no stretch of means were having any power to adjust the amount of refund sanctioned to the appellant against the demand which has been stayed, this shows that the departmental officers have no respect to the orders passed by this Tribunal. In fact, in a case where the stay has been granted by this Tribunal, there is no such demand against the appellant till the final decision given by this Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the authorities below is contrary to law. In that circumstances, same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with direction to the adjudicating authority to give the refund claim of the appellant within fifteen days on receipt of the order.
|