TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellants herein assail the impugned order dated 04-01-2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-II which in turn confirm the Order-in-Original by rejecting the refund claim for Rs. 4,24,415/-. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by both sides, the facts involves in this appeal may be summed up as follows - The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of stay order. In the meanwhile as alleged by appellants herein, the Department has forced and collected Rs. 4,24,415/- on 21-3-2005 (29-3-2005 realized on Bank). Thereafter, the Tribunal has considered the application filed by the appellant and extended the stay order dated 1-4-2005. Since the stay order has become operative and in force from the beginning of pendenancy of the appeal and as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings. The Id. Advocate for the appellants contends that the Impugned order in this appeal is perverse and without application of mind. According to him extension of stay order was passed in his absence and there was no occasion to represent about the payment collected by the Department under coercion. Furthermore, the proceedings initiated in the refund claim have been terminated or ended even....