2010 (6) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... missioner, Indore by his order dated 15th February 2006 had sanctioned refund of Rs. 3,32,496/-. However, an amount of Rs. 1,99,472/- were appropriated towards certain dues payable by the respondents to the Government and balance of Rs. 1,43,024/- were ordered to be paid to the respondents. The claim of payment of interest by cheque was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, set aside the order and directed refund of the total amount to the respondents and also allowed the claim of interest with effect from 23rd November 2005, the day on which period of three months expired from the date of passing of High Court's order under which the respondents were held to be not liable to pay the duty. It is undisputed fact that the amount whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ire the payment of such sums or may deduct the amount so payable from any money owing to the persons from whom such sums may be recoverable or due, which may be in his hands or under his disposal or control, or may recover the amount by way of attachment and sale of excisable goods belonging to such person. Obviously, therefore, once the duty liability was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and though the party had challenged the same by way of appeal, as there was no stay granted to the order passed by the adjudicating authority, certainly the Deputy Commissioner in the matter in hand was justified in adjusting the amount due to the Government from the amount refundable to the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) having erred in ig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... three months from the date of pronouncement of the order of High Court. In my considered opinion that, therefore, no interference is called for in the said direction. 7. The appeal, therefore, partly succeeds. As far as the adjustment which was ordered by the adjudicating authority is to be confirmed while setting aside the order in that regard passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), no further interference is called for in the impugned order. Hence the impugned order to the extent interferes with the order of the adjudicating authority in relation to adjustment of the amount is hereby set aside. The order directing payment of interest is not interfered with. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X