2009 (1) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Ld. Advocate Shri Suriyanarayanan, on behalf of the appellants submits that they had filed an appeal on the letter of the Superintendent requiring them to pay Rs. 14,11,519/- but the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the facts that the appeal filed by them is against....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e judgment cited by the ld. Advocate is not relevant to the facts of the case since in this case the communication of the superintendent was issued after proper adjudication, the fact remains that Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected it on the ground that it was against the order-in-original. The application for stay as well as the form EA-1 show that the appeal was against the letter of the Superi....