9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and printing of the matter as specified by ITC and collected Rs. 10/- per 1000 slides made by them. They have also in turn supplied paper boards for conversion into slides to M/s. Vijai Industries Unit II M/s. Regency Printers, M/s. Rajhans Enterprises and received back for supply to M/s. ITC Bangalore. The case of the department is that Vijai Industries appeared to be liable to pay duty of Rs. 16,67,721.69 and SED of Rs. 82,843.99 for the period 1/88 to 3/90. This duty amount of Rs. 16,99,548 was paid by M/s. Vijaya Industries. Even before the proceedings started as per their letter dated 23-3-1990 (filed in page 101 of the paper book), the relevant portion of which is reproduced below, M/s Vijai Industries have paid the sum of Rs. 16, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 23-3-1990 and they have no objection for this being appropriated towards duty in terms of the impugned order in respect of the three units. He contended that this amount was paid under protest pending the outcome of the appeals in respect of the very same goods which have been held to be dutiable in the hands of the three appellants. He also stated that the appellants will not press their refund claim for Rs. 13,28,503 which was filed before the final order and which is now pending in terms of the adjudication order passed as the benefit of Notification 175/86 has been allowed to the appellants by the lower authority in the case of Vijai Industries. He also stated that the only order which he wants in this case is that the above said dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing the refund claim filed before the lower authority pending finalisation of the adjudication order, we find force in the contention of the learned Counsel that this amount already paid can be appropriated towards duty as demanded in terms of the impugned order. Accordingly we hold that the above said amount should be appropriated against the above three appellants which we hold is the due amount and which is not contested before us. This is subject to the condition that the appellants will not press their refund claim which is pending before the AC. In the case of Vijai Industries and Rajhans Enterprises, the confiscation of the goods for the reasons set out in the order of the lower authority, is upheld. As regards penalty, while we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
