2015 (1) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting their refund claim as premature. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21-11-1996 the investigation was conducted in the factory of the appellant and some discrepancies were found with the physical stock and stock shown in 3CD form declared with Income Tax. The appellant made a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same is premature. Therefore, the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. counsel for the appellant submits that as the amount has been deposited by the appellant during the course of investigation, further while considering their stay application, this Tribunal has considered the amount paid by the appellant as pre-deposit and waive the requirement of pre-deposit; therefore, the amount paid by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osit. The said view has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, I hold that the refund claim filed by the appellant is not premature and lower authorities is required to refund the amount of pre-deposit made by the appellant immediately. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to imple .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X