2021 (12) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef facts of the case is that the appellant's refund claim though sanctioned but same was appropriated against the liabilities covered by another order-in-original No. 22-29/GC/OP/DIV-I/ANK/DEM/SRT-II/2014 dated 25.06.2014. The appeal against the order in original dated 25.06.2014 was pending at the time of appropriation. There was a dispute about mandatory pre-deposit required under Section 35F in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal against the same would go against the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order dated 28.11.2014 approached the Hon'ble High Court Gujarat under Civil Application No. 1981 of 2018, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26.06.2018 with regard to issue of pre-deposit quashed the communication of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21.08.2014 and 28.11.2014 and held that the pre-de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the original authority and rejected the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal. 3. Shri Mitesh Jain, Learned Chartered Accountant, appearing on behalf the appellant submits that when the refund was appropriated against the demand, the said demand matter was subjudice before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the said appeal the appellant had made payment through cenvat account, the sam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the refund amount. 5. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. 6. I find that there is chequered history of the entire case however, the case can be decided brief. I find that the refund of the appellant was appropriated against the confirmed demand. The said confirmed demand order was under challenge in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal....