https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108870 Where the Revenue did not seek a stay of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order and the refund was already paid in consequential proceedings, the Tribunal treated the subsequent appeal as infructuous. The payment of refund was regarded as having the concurrence of the jurisdictional Commissioner, and the protective demand was held to be immaterial. On that basis, no error was found in declining to decide the appeal on merits, because the Revenue's own conduct had rendered the matter incapable of effective adjudication. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal as infructuous was therefore upheld, and the application was rejected. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:08:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108870 Where the Revenue did not seek a stay of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order and the refund was already paid in consequential proceedings, the Tribunal treated the subsequent appeal as infructuous. The payment of refund was regarded as having the concurrence of the jurisdictional Commissioner, and the protective demand was held to be immaterial. On that basis, no error was found in declining to decide the appeal on merits, because the Revenue's own conduct had rendered the matter incapable of effective adjudication. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal as infructuous was therefore upheld, and the application was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108870