9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. AV(196)202/2024 dated 11/09/2014. Respondent has also filed a cross objection. 2. The appeal and cross objection both are disposed of by a common order. 3. When the matter was called out, court master produces a letter from the respondent seeking adjournment, on perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in the Revenue appeal is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... departmental representative while taking me through the entire case records, submits that assessee has failed to produce original GAR and other documents, evidences payments of Rs. 21,02,259/- before the adjudicating authority; that the first appellate authority has erred in holding that the submission of original documents evidence payment as irrelevant; he relies upon the judgment of the Apex c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound I find that the Tribunal categorically held in the favor of the assessee respondent by an order dated 2.4.2010 and if it is so, tax liability discharged by appellant assessee respondent is not in doubt. Consequent to the said order in his favor, assssee respondent filed the refund claim before the adjudicating authority. I find that the arguments put forth by the learned departmental represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect. I reproduce the same as in paragraph 6.1 to 6.6. 8. It can be seen from the above reproduced reasonings of the first appellate authority, he has correctly set aside the order-in-original. 9. In my considered view, the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal is rejected and the cross objection filed by the respondent assessee is also disposed of. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
