2007 (6) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i. U.H. Jadhav, JDR for the respondent. [Order per : Shri T. Anjaneyulu, Member (Judicial)] - 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant herein aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai, filed the present appeal.  The issue in the present appeal relates to appropriation of sanctioned refund amount against the demand confirmed in some other order o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the appellant. 4. The submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the appropriation of refunded amount within two months against some other demand is illegal and improper. There was still appeal time to the appellant against the Order-in-Original dated 27.2.2006. Further more the Dy. Commissioner on receipt of simple letter from the Jt. Commissioner cannot appropriate the amount s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has rightly applied the principles laid down in the case of M/s. Voltas Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad to the effect that as long as appeal is pending or stay has been granted against the confirmed demand, the appropriation of the sanctioned amount is bad and not enforceable.  Though the ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) convinced on this point, still directe....