2013 (11) TMI 1535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.P. Batra, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri V.P. Batra, ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, we find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to refund of duty which stands doubly paid by the appellant. The refund....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16-6-2003 to the appellant again stressing upon the documents required to be supplied by them and also observed inasmuch as they have not supplied the documents, refund claim cannot be considered for sanction. The appellant again approached the Revenue for finalization of the refund claim. After a lot of correspondence, the appellant were issued a show cause notice on 28-6-2005 proposing rejection....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....servations made by Commissioner (Appeals). The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Priya Industries Ltd. as also in the case M/s. Flock (India) (P) Ltd. operate in a different circumstance. In these decisions, it stand held that when the "lis" between the assessee and the Revenue is decided against the assessee, the assessee cannot approach the revenue authority for refund of the am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal adjudicating authority which was the subject matter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the earlier correspondence dated 16-6-2003 (even though there were subsequent correspondences also) was not put to challenge cannot be appreciated. Accordingly, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the origin....