Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Ashutosh Metal Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

2016 (9) TMI 887 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Refund claim - Entitlement - Assistant Commissioner, after allowing the refund claim had adjusted the same against the outstanding dues - appellants accepted the said order of the Asstt. Commissioner and did not challenge it before any higher appellate forum - Held that:- when the matter was remanded by the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings and reached the Commissioner (Appeals) in denovo proceedings, he again passed the order in favour of the assessee. That order had become final inasmuch as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me, the appellants entitlement to refund would be decided accordingly. - Decided against the appellant - Excise Appeal No. 51317 of 2016- Ex (SM) - Order No. FO/53534 /2016-Ex (SM) - Dated:- 7-9-2016 - Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa After hearing both sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Copper ingots. Their factory was visited by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of deposited amount. The appellants accordingly, filed claim for refund as a consequence of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The said refund claim was taken up for adjudication by the original adjudicating authority who sanctioned the same but appropriated it towards the outstanding demand of ₹ 8 crores approx. 3. The appellants did not challenge the above order of the original adjudicating authority before any higher appellate forum. In the meanwhile, the order of the Commissioner (Appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r but appropriated against the confirmed demand in some other matter. The said refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioners on the ground that same has already been once adjudicated and appropriated towards outstanding demand and as such, the same cannot be remitted to the assessee The appellant filed an appeal against the said order of the Asstt. Commissioner before Commissioners (Appeals), who also observed that refund claim having already been sanctioned and appropriated against 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

said stay order was challenged by the appellant before the Hon ble Delhi High Court, who reduced the amount of deposit to ₹ 1.50 crores, with the directions to give bond for the balance amount. Such order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court stand complied with by them. It is the contention of the appellant that the directions of the Hon ble Delhi High Court having been complied with by them by depositing an amount of ₹ 1.50 crores in cash, there was no justification for the Revenue to ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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