2006 (6) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal arises from OIA No. 61/2004-C.E., 27-02-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 9,70,524/- during the investigations. The Revenue appropriated that amount and has rejected the refund application on the ground that the amounts have been deposited voluntarily and the same cannot be treated as deposit during the period of investigation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g investigation. This finding is contested. 2. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 344 (Tri.-Del.) wherein the Tribunal has held that mere appropriation will not change the character of deposit made during investigation. He also relies on the judgment confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CC v. P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gations. Such deposits have to be treated as such as held in the judgments noted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The mere fact of appropriation by Revenue without any demand raised or confirmed in terms of Show Cause Notice will not change the character of deposit during investigation. They continue to be considered as deposits and cannot be appropriated towards the demands which have not been rais .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X