2009 (9) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby refund of Rs.93,064/- was allowed. 2. After hearing ld. DR and on perusal of the records, the main contention of the Revenue is that the amount of Rs.93,064/- was not sanctioned by the Original Authority as the amount was not paid under protest and the refund claim has not been filed within one year from the relevant date. 3. For th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, the entire amount of Rs.3,50,523/- was deposited by way of a single TR-6 challan  dated 21.04.2004 and not in two parts. Therefore, there was no justification on the part of the lower authority to bifurcate the amount of Rs.3,50,523/- into two parts wherein one part was consequential  to the Order-in-Appeal and the other part treated as time barred. The lower authority has clearly mis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tood vacated in its entirety. In the result, the Appellant was entitled to the refund of the entire amount of Rs.3,50,523/- already paid vide TR-6 Challan dated 21.04.2004 as consequential relief. 8. In view of the above, the Order impugned is not sustainable on merits as the lower authority has failed to assimilate the facts on record while disallowing the part refund claim of Rs.93,064/-." ....