9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laysia and Sri Lanka and landed them at ICD, Tughlakabad. The Revenue Intelligence Authorities conducted raids at the petitioner's factory and premises on 21.11.2006 and drew samples. The petitifoner sought provisional release of the goods and deposited certain amounts through demand drafts on 12.11.2007. The assessing authorities claimed differential duty to the extent of Rs. 7,14,188/- and at the same time show cause notice was issued claiming larger amounts. By an order in original, the demands were confirmed and the petitioner's liability was fixed at Rs. 73,92,399/- on 31.03.2008. The petitioner appealed to the CESTAT; in an interim order, the CESTAT noticed that since over and above Rs. 7,14,188/- deposited earlier, a further amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods. Therefore in these circumstances we find merit in the contention of appellant. The impugned order is set aside and Appeals are allowed." 4. The petitioner applied for refund of the amounts deposited by application on 27.7.2012. A copy of that application has been annexed to the petition. It is alleged that on 15.2.2013 and subsequent dates, reminders were given to the authorities to deal with the claim. Eventually, the refund claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 17.10.2013. The Commissioner was of the view that the refund claim was made on 14.8.2012 after expiry of one year from the date of the CESTAT's final order, i.e., 6.7.2011. 5. The petitioner's counsel submits that the customs authorities have acted contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instances arising out of non-implementation of the judicial orders, the Board has reason to review and reiterate the earlier Circulars on the subject of non-implementation of orders of CESTAT or any Final Authority in relation to returning pre-deposits made as per directions of CESTAT or any other Final Authority in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 & Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Board has taken a strict view with regard to non-returning of such deposits. 2. As we are all aware the CESTAT has in a number of such cases awarded interest on pre-deposits where its orders have not been implemented and the Department had challenged this and filed Civil Appeals in the Supreme Court. 3. The Board has noted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and compliance reported. The board has also decided to implement the CESTAT Orders already passed for payment of interest and the interest payable shall be paid forthwith. 8. This issues with the approval of Chairman/Member (L&J), CBEC. 9. Kindly acknowledge receipt. Sheila Sangwan Joint Secretary (Review)" 8. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the above Circular direct the authorities to ensure that amounts deposited with them are refunded within the time indicated, i.e., three months. Paragraph 5 even underlines that if there is any delay beyond three months, it would be viewed adversely and appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against the concerned defaulting officers. 9. In the present case, the petitioner has concededly deposited Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
