9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord, the appellants deposited an amount of Rs. 3,90,156/- during the course of investigation conducted against them by the anti-evasion. Subsequently, an order was passed confirming demand and imposition of penalty and redemption fine. Penalty of Rs. 3,40,156/- and redemption fine of Rs. 1.25 lakhs was deposited by the appellant in pursuance to Order-in-Original. The matter was taken up to Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the deposit of fine and penalty made for availing right to appeal, the department has no right to withhold the same in case the mater is finally decided in favour of the appellant. However, instead of granting refund of the same, he rejected it on the ground of unjust enrichment by taking note of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in case of M/s. Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE as repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 177 (Bom.) (d) M/s. Godrej Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 259 (Tri.-Mumbai) (e) M/s. Kalvert Food India Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 444 (Tri.-Mumbai) 5. As against the above, the learned JDR has drawn our attention to the Tribunal's decision in case of United Spirit Ltd. v. CC (Import), Nhava Sheva as reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 360 (Tri-Mum.), laying down tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
