TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order]. After hearing both the sides at length, I find that appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards duty, at the time of the Central Excise officers visit in their factory and during investigation, inasmuch as Central Excise officers entertained a view that the appellant had cleared their final product clandestinely. Subsequently proceedings were initiated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent dues by the adjudicating authority . He accordingly modified the order of the lower authority. 2. As a result of above developments appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 50,000/-, which was rejected by original adjudicating authority as also by Commissioner (Appeals). The matter travelled up to Tribunal, who vide their order dt. 19-3-2004 set aside the order and held that - since the said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been drawn to the earlier orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereas he is referring to the said deposit as duty amount. The same was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as there were no findings of the original adjudicating authority on the issue of clandestine removal. 4. After having gone through the earlier adjudication as well as appellate orders and the Tribunal s ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
