9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finished goods to various depots/locations all over India and pay duty on such additions to the value. They filed requisite declarations. They also have a duty paid godown about one kilometres away from their place of manufacture which is known as Lube Complex. The goods are also cleared on payment of duty to this Lube Complex, from there they cleared them to various customers/locations. Uniform price is being charged from all customers in the area limits specified as Luke Plant pricing area. They also paid differential duty, on Rs. 1.60 per litre, when the products are removed from this Lube Complex (duty paid godown). Notices dated 4-9-1997, 3-11-1997, 19-11-1997, 23-2-1998, 4-8-1998 and 3-11-1998 were issued demanding duty aggregati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Show Cause Notice. On appeal against this Order 27-9-1999, the Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 19-5-2000 allowed the appeal subject to the verification that Rs. 1.60 per litre should be added to the assessable value and wherever the said amount was not added in the assessable value, duty on that amount was required to be recovered. 2.1 In view of the above position, the appellants filed an application for refund on 4-9-2000 claiming refund of Excise duty of Rs. 2,92,57,767/- deposited by T.R. 6 Challan in pursuance of order dated 19-5-1999. The Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 28-6-2001 rejected the claim on the grounds : (i) that no documentary evidence proving that they have paid differential duty, (ii) it was not cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were entitled to refund. Hence the present appeal. 3. After hearing both sides, and considering the material on records, it is found that : (a) on a perusal of application for refund dated 1-9-2000 for Rs. 2,92,57,767/- it is found that the same indicated that the application was for refund of pre-deposit of Rs. 2,95,75.767/- as payments made under protest. There is no case or cause for considering recourse of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the case of return of pre-deposit amounts. In fact, instructions have been issued in the recent past that pre-deposit amounts should be returned without insisting of any pre-condition of a formal refund application on part of the persons who had made the pre-deposits pursuant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bar or and/cause to mix up the issue of return of pre-deposit amounts. We therefore find no reason to withhold the return of the pre-deposit amount. 4. In view of this, we are not determining the other issues which were contested and contended before us as regards the consequence of the order dated 19-5-2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals), since the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 19-5-2000 and its compliance if required in terms and or refund is not an issue before us. We are restricting our orders only to the issue of the claim as made and return of pre-deposit amount paid. We do not find any reason to withhold the return of the aforesaid amount. 5. In view of our findings, this appeal is to be allowed with direction that such amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
