TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber Mr. N. Anand, Advocate K.S. Ravi Shankar - For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S Garg These two appeals are directed against the common impugned order dated 19.9.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby he has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are a partnership firm and a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in mining and export of iron ore fines and other minerals. The appellant was consuming various input and input services for manufacture and exporting of iron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the order of the lower authority, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the appeals of the appellant. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the stay order passed by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka whereby the High Court has stayed the recovery and in spite of that both the lower authorities have ignored the stay order and have appropriated the interest against the disputed demand, which was sub-judice before the High Court. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. Further it is a settled position of law as held in the cases cited above that the appropriation of refund amount towards duty demand pending in other cases which has not attained finality is not legal and proper. Therefore, keeping in view the above stated position, we are of the considered view that the appropriation of refund claim against disputed pending customs appeals is not sustainable in law as the demands in those cases have not reached finality. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief if any. 7. By following the ratio of the above said decision, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside by allowing both the appeals of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
