2006 (12) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te, for the Appellant. Shri Raj Mal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - he instant appeal was filed by the appellant against rejection of refund of Rs. 1,30,807/-. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief are that, by an order-in-original dated 1-8-1997, the demand of duty of Rs. 9,95,553/- was confirmed against the appellant. By stay order dated 30-4-1998, the Commissioner (A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other demand is not sustainable in law. He submits that there is no dispute that this amount was deposited by the appellant as pre-deposit, and, therefore, the adjudicating authority cannot adjust the amount against another penalty which was pending before the Tribunal and subsequently the Tribunal issued the stay order in favour of the assessee. He relied upon the following decisions :- (1)&nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he refund claim being consequential one. is not hit by time bar factor. He also observed that the provision of unjust enrichment was also not applicable in the instant case as the claim pertains to the amount of Modvat credit and also deposit of TR 6 challan. The adjudicating authority further observed that the refund is liable to be sanctioned to the appellant but the same to be appropriated agai....