9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 18/01/2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of telecommunication equipments including telephone exchange and related accessories. They filed a refund claim of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) vide order dt. 01/06/2012 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to refund the amount of interest paid by the appellant and based on that order, appellant once again filed the refund claim on 13/07/2012. The lower authority vide the Order-in-Original dt. 09/10/2012 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,73,953/- to M/s. ITI Ltd., Palakkad and appropriated the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposed of and has not attained finality. He also submitted that in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, it was not correct on the pan of the Department to have initiated coercive action against the appellant by recovering the amount towards interest in a matter which is sub-judice before the Tribunal and which has not attained finality. He also submitted that it is a settled la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stainable in law. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the materials on record and after going through the decisions cited supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as held in the decisions cited supra that the department cannot take co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
