2020 (2) TMI 1628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B. K. Jain, Authorised Representative for the Appellant Ms. Pragya Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard learned A.R. Shri B. K. Jain appearing for the Revenue and Ms. Pragya Pandey learned advocate appearing for the respondents. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n'ble Tribunal, the assessee approached the Revenue for refund of the deposits made by them to the extent of Rs. 22.75 crores. The Original Adjudicating Authority while dealing with the said refund observed that since the pre-deposit required to be made by the assessee at the time of filing of appeal was only 7.5% of the confirmed duty, which comes to Rs. 2.53 crores approximately, the respondent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 20,21,75,052/- alongwith the interest applicable at the rate from the dates of deposits till the date of sanction. 5. Revenue being aggrieved with the said order filed the present appeal. The contention of the learned A.R. is that in the order impugned before Commissioner (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner had not rejected the balance amount of Rs. 20.21 crores approximately and has iss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent conclusion that the balance refund claim stands rejected by him. In this scenario, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the balance refund claim cannot be said to be out of the scope of the impugned order before him. In any case and in any view of the matter the subsequent show cause notice also stands decided by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 26/04/2019 sanctionin....