https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104634 Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules could not be used to direct refund of a pre-deposit where the refund claim had already been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner as time-barred after notice and hearing. That rejection was a fresh adjudication order, so the aggrieved party was required to pursue the statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that its ancillary power could not bypass the available appellate remedy, and the earlier order could not be treated as unimplemented in these circumstances. The miscellaneous application was therefore not maintainable for the relief sought and was dismissed. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:00:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104634 Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules could not be used to direct refund of a pre-deposit where the refund claim had already been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner as time-barred after notice and hearing. That rejection was a fresh adjudication order, so the aggrieved party was required to pursue the statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that its ancillary power could not bypass the available appellate remedy, and the earlier order could not be treated as unimplemented in these circumstances. The miscellaneous application was therefore not maintainable for the relief sought and was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104634