9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,544/- made by the Department towards Excise duty. Ultimately, the issue was decided by the Customs, Excise & Gold [Control] Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as, "the CEGAT"] by judgment dated 27th June, 2003 [2003 (157) E.L.T. 713 (Tri. -Ahmd.)] in the following manner :- "In the Notification 33/90 there is a reference to execution of bond in terms of paragraph (vi) of the notification, but, the show cause notice does not state that the claim is made on the bond but under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The said rule provides for removal of manufacturing goods from the factory of production. The production here was PSF, which was made by the Reliance Industries Limited and not by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, I have the only option to appropriate, the said amount from the present refund claim of Rs. 17,34,292/-." 5. On the basis of such observations, though on one hand, he sanctioned the refund of Rs. 17,34,292/-, provided that the same shall be appropriated against the Government dues of Rs. 18,06,554/- as the petitioner had not paid the bond amount. 6. The petitioners, therefore, once again, after filing another appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, this time around, passed an Order dated 15th December 2008 [2009 (245) E.LT. 427 (Tri. -Ahmd.)] and observed as under :- "We have considered the submissions. In this case, duty demand arose because of failure to account for Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bond is set aside and the original adjudicating authority is directed to decide the issue relating to the appropriation of the amount afresh." 8. It is the case of the petitioners that upon the last order passed by the Tribunal, there was no confusion left in the right of the petitioners to seek refund, despite which, the authorities are not sanctioning the refund. They have issued notices to the petitioners to remain present for personal hearing. The petitioners' request for giving details and copy of bonds have not been accepted. The petitioners are, therefore, unable to defend properly and in the meantime, their refund claim is getting delayed. 9. Respondents have filed reply raising several averments; particularly, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
