TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent filed the refund claim before the adjudicating authority. I find that the arguments put forth by the learned departmental representative will not carry the case for the Revenue any further, for a simple reason that discharge of tax liability has never been contested, in as much it is on record that, amounts paid by the appellants were appropriated by the lower authorities in the first round of litigation. As regards other points raised by the learned departmental representative that there is a mismatch of chalans produced and PLA. I find that there is no dispute that the entire amount as tax liability has been paid by respondent and having been appropriated by the lower authorities in order in original now department cannot turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Against such an order owe appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority who set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal of the respondent. 5. Learned 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 ₹ 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 court in the case of Pransata Bhattacharjee 2010 (251) E.L.T. 161 for the preposition that the refund claim without relevant documents is rejectable, provisions of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax liability has been paid by respondent and having been appropriated by the lower authorities in order in original now department cannot turn around and say, There is no payment of amount in the absence of documents. On such a background, I find that the findings recorded by the first appellate authority in the impugned order are correct. 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. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
