9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. This department appeal is against the order of the Commissioner No. 131/2005 (131-KDL)Cus/ Commr(A)/Ahd dated 4-5-2005. 2. Heard boh sides. 3. The relevant facts of the case are as follows : (a) There was investigation against the respondent company and the other parties regarding diversion of chemicals imported under DEEC scheme. Duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken as compliance of pre-deposit of penalties on the respondent and their associates. The aforesaid observation also shows that the amount deposited by the respondent was treated as a deposit by the respondent in the case being investigated and not as a deposit made on behalf of the person/firms/companies from whom duty has been demanded. 12. Having come to such a conclusion and noting the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly and amount so determined shall be credited to the fund . The provision makes it clear that only that amount can be credited to the fund, which was being refunded as duty or interest paid on such duty. In the instant case, the amount being refunded is neither part of the duty nor any interest paid on such duty. Hence the amount cannot be credited to the fund. 13. The issues referred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arried out by the DRI. (iv) As no duty has been demanded from the respondent in any of the Orders-in-Original, the deposit made by them cannot be treated as deposit against demand of duty. For this reason alone, the provisions of unjust enrichment will not be applicable for refund of such amount as the same is not a refund of duty. 4. The Department has come on appeal against the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. We notice that no duty has been confirmed by the authorities below against the respondent company. When that being the case, the question of adjusting dues from the amount deposited by the company is not legal especially when there is no consent from the respondent company as rightly held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. C.H. Shah Co. v. C.C., Mumbai cited supra. The dues are required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
