TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c dispute between the parties leading to the refund. Nor does it record the submission of the parties. Consequently no examination of the submissions made by the Petitioner in support and/or to oppose the application, is found in the impugned order. It merely rejects the application by stating that it finds 'no cogent and valid reasons' to stay the refund. Thus, the impugned order is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner. Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal, for the Respondents. P.C: Not on board Mentioned. Upon mentioning taken on board for final disposal at the request of the parties. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 31st December, 2018 passed by the Respondent No.1 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tative and Learned Chartered Accountant representing the respondent. On perusal of the application, we find no cogent and valid reason for staying release of refund ordered by first appellate authority. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 3. The above order is self evidently a nonspeaking order. It even does not record the basic dispute between the parties leading to the refund. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting the above test, it becomes a nonspeaking order. 5. In the above view, we set aside the impugned order dated 31st December, 2018 and restore the Petitioner's stay application to the file of the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. Needless to state that the Tribunal would dispose of the stay application of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
