9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AR) Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: 1. These appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No. US/301 to 310/RGD/2012 dated 01/05/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The appellant, M/s. Supreme Petrochemical Ltd. filed rebate claims totally amounting to Rs.42,34,172/- under 10 claims. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise sanctioned the rebate claim of Rs.42,34, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriated the amounts. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority, who also rejected the appeal. Hence, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that as far as the appropriation of Rs. 24.36 lakhs is concerned, the entire demand was already stayed by this Tribunal vide order dated 24/01/2011 and the stay was granted not for any partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the Revenue defends the action undertaken by the lower authorities. He submits that as far as the appropriation of Rs,. 14,27 lakhs is concerned, there was no stay obtained from this Tribunal and the stay in that case was granted only on 05/01/2012 whereas the order appropriating the amount was issued on 27/12/2011 and, therefore, there nothing wrong in appropriating the amount against which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng before the Tribunal, no coercive steps should be taken to recover the demands. The Hon'ble Allahadad High Court, in the case of Galaxy Indo Gab cited supra, held that recovery/demand notice during pendency of stay cannot be undertaken by the Revenue authorities especially when the stay was not challenged and the said stay order was binding on the revenue authorities. The refusal by revenue auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
