9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as security deposit and he sanctioned Rs. 60,000/- to be returned/refunded to the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Dinesh Co., Ranipet are registered manufacturer of leather chemicals. They filed a refund claim on 15-2-2002 for Rs. 4,78,410/-. The said amount was paid pursuance to an offence case registered by the Head Quarters Preventive Unit, Chennai-III Commissionerate against the said unit. The Commissioner after due process of law had passed an order-in-original No. 13/98, dated 29-9-1998 demanding Rs. 12,72,815/- as duty apart from imposing penalties; the appellant preferred an appeal with CEGAT; the Hon ble CEGAT in Order No. 661/2001, dated 26-6-2001 set aside the order-in-original with consequential re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at :- 3.1 The amount was paid due to the compulsion of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Head Quarters Preventive. 3.2 The case registered by the preventive was adjudicated by the Commissioner as per order-in-original No. 13/98 and he demanded Rs. 12,72,815/- towards the duty from the appellant on the ground that some quantity of goods were cleared without payment duty and the distributor was related person. 3.3 The appellant had filed an appeal against the Commissioner's order-in-original No. 13/98. The refund claim was disposed of as inadmissible based on the Commissioner's order-in-original, that the appellant can revive the claim only after the disposal of his appeal by the Tribunal. The appellant had done accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation of a case. The appellants were issued with Show Cause Notice No. 8/98, dated 5-3-1998 which was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 13/98, dated 29-9-1998 and were visited with demands of duty and penalty vide the impugned order. During investigation of the case proceedings, the appellants had deposited the following amounts : TR6 challan dt. 13-9-97 for Rs. 1,00,000/- -Do- dt. 17-9-97 for Rs. 1,06,332/- -Do- dt. 17-9-97 for Rs. 12,708/- -Do- dt. 17-11-97 for Rs. 2,00,000/- 6. In the adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner had adjusted the amount paid against the demands. The appellants, on appeal to the Hon ble CEGAT succeeded and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n inevitable concomitant has been the trend of making lumpsum duty deposits, by remorseful assessees seeking to pacify recalcitrant tax officials. Such deposits indicate the zeal of the tax officials while simultaneously contradistincting the contriteness of the alleged offender. Adjudicatory proceedings passing through the passage of time rescript a different narration of events and in the denouement an alleged offender may emerge as the victor and return to claim his duty deposit, much like fairy tale love stories that culminate in the victim becoming the hero and returning to claim his lady love. However, the irrepressible tax man would now like to script an aftermath to the tax war by denying to return the duty deposit. In his conceptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
