9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestigation but there is no adjudication order and no confirmation of demand as on today against the appellant in these circumstances set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief - expedite the case and sanction the refund claim within thirty days of receipt of this order. - C/329/12 - A/02/13/CSTB/C-I - Dated:- 2-1-2013 - Ashok Jindal And P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Shri Prasad Paranjape, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Shri Navneet, Additional Commissioner (AR) Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected as pre- mature. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant M/s Raymond Ltd. had imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the refund claim be sanctioned to them. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue strongly opposes the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that in this matter the appellant themselves have admitted their duty liability during the course of investigation and they have voluntarily paid the duty amount. He further submits that although the show-cause notice has been issued in the year 2009 but in this case there are more than 150 parties and against all of whom investigations were being carried out by DRI. One adjudicating authority has been appointed by the CBEC only in March, 2012. That is why adjudication could not be taken place till date. He further submits that the amount pre-deposited by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch and seizure was conducted by the department. It has been pointed out by him that the investigation is under way and the liability of the petitioner could go much more than the amount voluntarily deposited by the petitioner. He has further stated that the cheques of Rs.1.5 Crores were presented to the bank and same have bounced. He contends that the prayer of the petitioner thus may not be granted. However, he has not disputed that as of date there is no amount outstanding against the petitioner. In that set of facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana ordered for refund of the amount deposited during the course of investigation. 8. In this case also, it is not disputed that the appellant has paid the amount during the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
