TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Department is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. IND-1/04/2008 dated 8-1-2008. 2. Heard the learned DR. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. It appears that (based on an order dated 18-6-97 issued by Mumbai (Customs authorities) there was customs duty demand of Rs. 1,22,131/- pending recovery from the respondent and that the Commissioner Customs (Import) has issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. one lakh to the party by way of cheque at an early date. 6. Learned DR after narrating the sequence of events as above reiterates the grounds of appeal. 7. There is no dispute about the eligibility of refund of Rs. one lakh sanctioned to the respondent. Dispute relates to the adjustment of said amount towards customs duty said to be due from the respondent in pursuance of the order passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in 1997 itself and that it was also submitted to the Customs authorities in December, 1997, whereas the order for demand of the Customs duty was made in June, 1997 itself. Therefore, in my opinion no recovery can be made from them based on the order dated 18-6-97. Moreover, the question whether the order dated 18-6-97 has been served on them is under dispute and based on the High Court order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delay in payment in terms of Section 11BB of the Act read with the order of the Tribunal dated 5/12-4-2007 and the Board's Circular F.No. 802/3S/2004-CX., dated 8-12-04." 9. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not approved the adjusting the refunded amount towards dues said to be pending from the respondent in the light of directions of the Hon'ble High Court as recorded above. In view....