9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The demand was raised for an amount of Rs. 20,326.78 by the Superintendent, while assessing the RT. 12 returns. When this demand was sought to be enforced, the respondents approached the Collector (Appeals), who held that since no appeal was filed against the assessment order and the appeal has been filed only against the letter written by the Superintendent seeking to enforce the demand, he rejected the appeal. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal (vide Order No. 170/90-WRB, dated 8-2-1990) held that the demand cannot be enforced against the respondents. It is a settled law that mere endorsement on the RT.12 returns without issue of show cause notice cannot be enforced. Moreover, in this case, when the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursued the matter with the Collector (Appeals) and then with the Tribunal. The Tribunal found substance in their contention and allowed the appeal and set aside the demand. The amount paid pursuant to the demand would have to be given back as a consequential relief. It is needless to point out that for filing an appeal, it is subject to the condition of the pre-deposit of the duty or penalty amount. Hence, if the amount has been paid, it is done only to comply with the statutory requirement. In such a case, letter of protest is also not called for, since right from the beginning the demand is contested before all the authorities. 4. Now coming to the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue, there are two grounds; one of the grounds is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no evidence produced by the Department that the amount of demand paid by the respondents pursuant to endorsement on RT. 12 return has been recovered over and above the duty already paid by way of debit in RG. 23A or PLA. Hence, the principle of unjust enrichment appears to have been mechanically pleaded in this case. In the result, I would advise the Department to stop the recycling of the issue again and again, just to deny the benefit extended by the Tribunal in the form of an appellate order. If the Department feels that the order of the Tribunal is not justified on any point of law, there is a provision in the law for making a reference application. But the law does not provide for such recycling the same issue by subsequent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
