Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 429 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (7) TMI 429 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 583 (Tri. - Del.) - Adjustment of refund amount with the pending demand - when the appellant went on appeal against the appropriation order, the very same Commissioner (Appeals), with whom the demand order was appealed, has held that the appropriation is correct. - Held that:- before appropriation of refund towards any arrears due, show cause notice/personal hearing is required. - appellants were not even issued a simple intimation regardin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

avichandran: The appellant filed a refund claim of ₹ 3,88,429/- on 24.3.2014 in consequence of a favourable order by Commissioner (Appeals). The said claim was processed and duly sanctioned by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide his order dated 13.06.2014. However, after sanctioning refund, he ordered appropriation of the said amount against confirmed demand pending against the appellant consequent upon the order dated 20.12.2013 of Addl. Commissioner. The appellant challenged the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand order was appealed, has held that the appropriation is correct. The said application along with the appeal was very much pending with the Commissioner (Appeals) at the time of appropriation order by the Original Authority. In fact, the long delay in disposal of stay/appeal pending with the Commissioner (Appeals) is not attributable to the appellant. The appeal filed in Feb., 2014 was decided only in Feb.2016. There was no decision on the stay application during this period. He contended .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

excess of 7.5% deposited by the appellants is legally tenable. This has been clarified by the Board s Circular dated 16.09.2014. As such, he pleaded for payment of refund already sanctioned with interest. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. He further stated that at the time of appropriation, the appellant did not produce any stay order against the confirmed demand and as such, the original authority has followed the Boards instructions dated 1.1.2013 and ordered such ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version