9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Per: S.S GARG The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 12/01/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the appeal and directed the original authority to sanction the refund of Rs. 1,47,24,880/- in compliance of the CESTAT Final Order No.21290/2015 dt. 04/06/2015. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 dt. 27/02/2006. Aggrieved by the said order, ITI filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 130/2013CE dt. 13/03/2013 upheld the order of ACCE and rejected the appeal filed by the ITI. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dt. 13/03/2013, ITI filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.21290/2015 dt 04/06/2015 allowed the appeal and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l authority has rightly adjusted the sanctioned refund amount against the pending demand created by Order-in-Original No. 19/2008 dt. 31/10/2008. The Revenue has mainly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal of Kolkata Bench in the case of Tisco Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in spite of strictures passed by the Commissioner( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions of both sides and perusal of records and the decisions relied upon by the respondent, we are of the considered view that the adjustment by the ACCE against a demand which is subjudice before the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. This issue is squarely covered by the decisions cited supra in favour of the respondent. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
