TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (10) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s petition is with regard to non-payment of refund of Rs. 2,27,964/- by the respondents. Facts giving rise to the present petition in a nutshell are as under. 2.The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,27,964/- by way of duty by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-IV. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejected on 29th October, 1999 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-IV on the ground that the petitioner had to make payment to the respondent authorities as there was another demand pending against the petitioner. 4.Being aggrieved by the said adjustment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 17th January, 2000. 5.During the pendency of the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 because, according to the petitioner, no amount was payable by the petitioner and, therefore, the amount of refund ought to have been paid to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. Learned advocate Shri Dinker appearing for the petitioner has submitted that for no rhyme or reason, the amount of refund is not being paid to the petitioner, and therefore the respondent authorities should be ....