2018 (6) TMI 776 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Adjustment of the sanctioned refund claim against outstanding demands – refund of the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs which the appellant was directed to deposit as a condition of hearing their appeal, which stand deposited by them – Held that:- Admittedly, the appellant has to pay the Revenue the confirmed demands – Mere filing of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, without there being any stay, cannot be considered as pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal being the last fact finding body, the orders passed by it have to be taken as having attained finality, unless stayed or reversed by higher appellate forum – appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – Ex. Appeal No. 50738 of 2018-SM – A/52108/2018-SM[BR] – Dated:- 30-5-2018 – Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Sh. Manish Saharan, Advocate for the appellant Sh. H. C. Saini, AR for the Respondent Per: Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both the sides, I find that the dispute in the present a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
order of the original adjudicating authority adjusting the refund with the outstanding demand was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the same and hence the present appeal. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that another demand of around ₹ 1.90 crore was confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs, Indore vide his order-in-original dated 19.03.2010, against which the present sanctioned refund stand adjusted. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that on an appeal against the said order of the Commissioner, confirming the demand, Tribunal has upheld the same. However, he submits that the said order of the Tribunal has been challenged by them before the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the appeal is pending before the Hon ble High Court. However, he fairly agrees that there is no stay of operation of the Tribunal order. It is his contention that instead of adjusting the refund claim against the said confirmed demand, Reve
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ecting the appeal. 6. For better appreciation, the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8, which is as under: 8. I find that the demand of customs duty was confirmed vide OIO dated 19.03.2010 amounting to 1.89 crore by the Commissioner, Customs, Indore. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.08.2015. Therefore, the adjustment has been made much after the two month time limit given by the Board. Further, no stay has been obtained against the said order of the Tribunal. The mere fact that an appeal has been filed by the appellant before the High Court is no ground to argue against the said adjustment of government dues, unless a stay has been obtained. It may also be stated that factory is closed since last several years and huge amount of customs dues are outstanding. Therefore, there is no infirmity in adjustment made by the adjudicating authority and such adjustment has been made in accordance with the statutory prov
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =