9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 62/2007 (V-II) CE dated 8-10-2007 by which the appellant's refund claim of Rs. 51,00,000/- has been rejected on the ground that the amount sanctioned for refund is required to be adjusted towards the outstanding demand of the predecessor company namely, M/s. New Tobacco Ltd., Bic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the demand against M/s. New Tobacco Ltd. is an old demand; and that they are not aware as to whether the said demand has been adjudicated or not. The appellants denied any liability of Rs. 35 Crores dues by M/s. New Tobacco Ltd. as they have not taken over their assets and liabilities and their terms of lease for only one year, i.e. for 1994-95. However their submission has been rejected and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same should be refunded along with interest, after a lapse of three months from the date of Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 1222 to 1229/2006 dated 17-7-2006 [2007 (208) E.L.T. 257 (T)]. 3. The learned DR defends the impugned order. He submits that the appellants have admitted the liability and they have taken over the company, M/s. New Tobacco Ltd., along with assets and liabilities. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company on lease for a period of one year only, i.e. 1994-95 in terms of the High Court's order. The appellant is not the owner of M/s. New Tobacco Ltd. and the department has not adjudicated the dues against M/s. New Tobacco Ltd. by issue of show cause notice or passing the adjudication order. The demand outstanding against M/s. New Tobacco Ltd cannot be fastened on the appellants and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
