2013 (12) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... – Relying upon Voltas Limited Vs. UOI [1998 (11) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] - the demand was set aside by CESTAT vide order dt. 24/02/2011 and there is no sign of quantification for a period of over 2 years – AC was right in sanctioning the refund of remaining amount of deposit made by the appellant after making suitable adjustments – observations of the OIA dt. 22/02/2013 passed by Commr (A) set aside - Decided in favour of Assessee.
M V Ravindran And H K Thakur, JJ. For the Appellants : Shri Vishal Agarwal, Adv., Shri V K Jain, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K Sivakumar, AR PER : H K Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 33/2013 (Ahd.-III)/SKS Commr (A)/Ahd, dt. 22/02/2013. Under this OIA Commr (A) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f India [2010 (250) ELT 179 (Bom.)] (iii) ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd Vs. CCE [2000 (124) ELT 1100 (T)] (iv) Krishna & Company Vs. CCE [2000 (125) ELT 503 (T)] (v) Sharda Synthetics Ltd Vs. CCE [2003 (156) ELT 730 (T)] (vi) Indusind Media & Communications Ltd Vs.UOI [2012 (276) ELT 447 (Bom.)] (vii) Raymond Ltd. Vs. CC (Airport) 3. Sh. K. Sivakumar (AR.) on the other hand reiterated the reasoning given by Commr (A). 4. We have carefully gone through the rival submissions and perused the case records. As the matter is covered by the Law laid down in various judicial pronouncement, after allowing stay application the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. It is observed that an amount of Rs. 4 Crore was paid by the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gh Court of Punjab & Haryana has reported the facts that "there is no amount outstanding against the petitioner but still under duress and threat the partners of the petitioner were forced to deposit the draft of Rs. 1 crore and post dated cheques of Rs. 1.5 crores. The fact is disputed by the counsel for the respondent. He states that the said draft was deposited by the partners of the petitioner along with the cheques voluntarily when the search 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X