9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Adithya Reddy For the Respondents : Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, AGP (T) ORDER PER The petitioner challenges an order dated 29.12.2023 by which it was held that the petitioner is liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 3,84,922/- towards an erroneous refund. 2. The petitioner asserts that it is engaged in manufacturing machines. In relation to the purchase of raw materials for such activity, it is state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the impugned order was issued. 4. Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents. By referring to both the intimation and the show cause notice, he submits that it is stated therein that a sum of Rs. 7,51,961/- was the excess refund on account of inverted duty structure. 5. The show cause notice does not provide any particulars beyond stating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not possible for such assessee to respond in a meaningful way to the show cause notice. In this case, as discussed above, both the show cause notice and the impugned order are bereft of particulars. Therefore, the order calls for interference. 7. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
