TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, dated 28th December 1987, whereby refund claim of Rs. 2,71,835.05 has not been granted to the petitioner on the ground that the appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was pending before the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. 2. The factual matrix is that the petitioners after having suffered order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector, Bombay, on 19th October 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to be allowed. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order-in-appeal, the Revenue invoked appellate jurisdiction of CEGAT. The appeal filed by the Revenue came to be rejected on 16th March, 1993 during the pendency of this petition. In view of the above, the demand which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise vide order dated 19th October, 1984 came to be set aside. 4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but bears the character of a security deposit, being a statutory condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. 5. In this view of the law laid down by this court the learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners are entitled to refund of amount. Since the Tribunal has decided the appeal, filed by the Revenue. Now, there is no impediment in the way of the respondents in granting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners have already been permitted to withdraw the amount of refund on furnishing undertaking to re-pay the same in the event of an adverse judgment, no further reliefs needs to be granted except the declaratory relief that the petitioners are entitled to have the refund. No further directions for payment are necessary. Undertaking furnished by the petitioners stands discharged. Writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
