TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion without any authority/adjudication. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/61316/2018 - Order No. A/62664/2018 - Dated:- 30-8-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Hon'ble Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Shri R.R. Yadav, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Tarun Kumar, AR ORDER Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim of ₹ 8,15,34,612/- has been rejected by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding that in remand order passed by this Tribunal the amounts stands appropriated in the original order, therefore, till finalization of remand proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant filed refund claim of ₹ 8,15,34,612/- on 20.04.2017, thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.07.2017 was issued to the appellant for rejection of the refund claim filed by the appellant. The adjudicating authority on 31.01.2018 rejected the refund claim which was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected their refund claim. Hence, the appellant is before us seeking sanction of refund claim of ₹ 8,15,34,612/-. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as there is no confirmed demand as on date, therefore, the amount paid during the course of investigation cannot be retained by the Department. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Digipro Import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the refund claim, no efforts were made to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, the request made by the Ld. AR is not acceptable, at this stage, that the time frame be given for adjudication. In fact, when the matter was remanded by this Tribunal for fresh adjudication, it is the duty of the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the matter at the earliest possible opportunity failing which justice can not be delivered. We take note of the fact that as the amount was deposited in the year 2007 and after 11 Years, no appropriation of the said amount has been done by adjudication despite the matter was remanded on 08.11.2016 for fresh adjudication. 7. We also take a note of the fact that the similar issue came up before the Hon ble High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
