ATUL LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : (Per <DJG>B.C. Patel</DJG>, J.) Rule. Mr.Mukesh R. Shah waives service of rule for the respondents. The petitioner in each of the matters has brought to our notice following facts :- There were 51 Adjudication Orders in all the three matters and on different dates, the amount by way of pre-deposit came to be deposited. In all the cases, decisions have been rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner is entitled to get the refund of the amount deposited by way of pre-deposit.

(2.) In this regard, the Board's directions are as follows :- (a) responsibility should be fixed for not disposing of the refund / rebate claims within 3 months from the date of application. (b) no refund / rebate claim should be withheld on the ground that an appeal has been filed against the order giving the relief, unless stay order has been obtained. It would be the responsibility of the concerned Commissioner to obtain stay order expeditiously where the orders by Commissioner (Appeals) or CEGAT suffer from serious infirmities and it involves grant of heavy refunds. (c) no refund / rebate claim should be withheld on the ground of augmentation of revenue in order to achieve targets.

(3.) It should be ensured that the Board's aforesaid directions are followed scrupulously by all officers .... "