9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Chibber and Shri R. K. Hasija, Advocatess For the Respondent : Shri V. Gupta, AR ORDER Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders. 2. The facts of the case are that, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Lead Alloys, Lead Ingots & Lead Oxide and Menthol Solutions and Menthol respectively. As the appellants wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants are recoverable. The matter was adjudicated, demand on account of erroneous refund was confirmed and the said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) but hold that extended period is not invokable therefore, demand for the relevant period was dropped. Against the said order, the appellants are in appeals. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that initially the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is invokable. 5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. After hearing the contentions of both sides, we find that the issue emerges before us is that, as refund claims were sanctioned to the appellants, and without challenging those assessment orders of refund claims sanctioning thereof, can be challenged by way of issuance of show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act or not. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner prescribed by law, ought to be done in that manner only or not at all."
Therefore, we hold that provisions of Section 11A of the Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, demands against the appellants are not sustainable.
6. In view of the above analysis, we allow the appeals filed by the appellants.
( Dictated & pronounced in the Court ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
