9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 28-4-2011 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Gupta, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 191-CE/APPL/KNP/09, dated 27-7-2009 upholding the order of the original authority dated 16-4-09. 2. This case has long background history and it is before this Tribunal for the third time in one form or other and the milestones are as follows : (a) A deposit of Rs. 9,35,000/- as cash security was made by the appellants as a condition to avail the permission granted by the Commissioner on 18-2-97 for storage of sugar bags without payment of duty. This amount stands fully sanctioned as refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner has adjusted against the arrears of revenue. However, from the Asstt. Commissioner s order dated 13-2-98, the arrears referred to in the order are those communicated by the Range Officer, as recoverable from the appellant for storage of molasses in Kachapits without Commissioner s permission. Just because the Range Superintendent writes to an assessee that a particular amount is recoverable from him without giving any personal hearing, the same cannot be treated as arrears. As held by the Tribunal in the case of Voltas v. C.C.E., (supra), the amount pending as arrears cannot be adjusted against the refund sanctioned, if the appeal against the order confirming duty is pending decision in appeal, while in this case, the amount whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as demand validly made and pending adjustment. He also submits that letter dated 4-9-97 should also be treated as a demand validly made. 5.1 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. I am not required to go into the merits of the issue raised in the letter dated 14-7-97 which relates to recovery of duty on molasses taken from store tanks to kachapits. The letter of the Superintendent dated 14-7-97 is not a show cause notice answerable to competent authority. The appellants have contested the demand vide their letter dated 5-8-97 explaining the compelling circumstances under which the molasses were transferred to tanks from kachapits, thus the demand has been disputed. It is not known whether a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
