TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority has observed that refund claim of ₹ 4,97,809/- has been withdrawn by the appellant being inadmissible. But, no finding has been given by the adjudicating authority, how this calculation has been arrived at. In view of this, the adjudicating authority is required to provide the details of admissible refund claim sought by the appellant of ₹ 4,97,809/-. Therefore, the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive for the respondent ORDER ASHOK JINDAL: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein part refund has been granted to them and refund of ₹ 4,97,809/- was held not admissible to them. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and availed certain cenvat credit, during the period 01.04.2004 to 31.12.2004 wherein cenvat credit sought to be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that as various demands for calculation are pending, therefore, the appeal is premature and liable to be set aside. Against the said order, appellant is before me. 3. Heard the parties. 4. On perusal of the record, I find that while entertaining the refund claim, the adjudicating authority has observed that refund claim of ₹ 4,97,809/- has been with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner who within a period of seven days of receipt of this order shall quantify the actual amount of refund. The appellant shall also cooperate with the adjudicating authority. The whole exercise should be done within a period of one month of receipt of the order of this Tribunal by the adjudicating authority. 6. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
