2000 (6) TMI 251 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of deposited amount by Managing Director pursuant to Tribunal's order.
2. Adjustment of refund against company's liability by Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an application by the Managing Director of a company seeking a refund of the amount deposited by him following a Tribunal's stay order. The original order imposed duty liability and penalties on the company, including a personal penalty on the Managing Director. The Tribunal granted stay on the condition of depositing specific amounts by different parties. While the appeal challenging the penalties imposed on the Managing Director and another individual was allowed, the company's appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. The Managing Director's penalty was quashed, and he sought a refund of the deposited amount, which the Assistant Commissioner adjusted against the company's liability, leading to the challenge.

2. The Assistant Commissioner justified the adjustment by stating that the payment was made by the company, as evident from the TR-6 Challan, and hence the refund could only be paid to the company. However, the Tribunal found this reasoning unsustainable as the deposit by the Managing Director was pursuant to the Tribunal's order under section 35F, and the penalty imposed on him was set aside in the appeal. The Tribunal held that the Excise authorities were duty-bound to return the amount to the party who deposited it, directing the Assistant Commissioner to return the money deposited by the Managing Director within a specified timeframe with interest as per the Act's provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the rightful refund of the amount deposited by the Managing Director in compliance with the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the duty of the Excise authorities to return the amount promptly upon the appeal's favorable outcome. The Assistant Commissioner's decision to adjust the refund against the company's liability was deemed unjustified, leading to the quashing of his order and a directive to return the amount with interest.