9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of PLA extract and the relevant TR-6 challan. There was admittedly no order of the Assistant Commissioner in an appealable form, issued after observing the principals of natural justice. It was only a file noting. In fact, it seems that the said sanctioning of refund claim on the file itself was not considered an order, even by the Revenue itself, inasmuch as the Assistant Commissioner subsequently passed a proper order-in-original on 23-1-1996. As such, we fully agree with the assessee that the action on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to restrict the refund to an amount of ₹ 4.06 crores is not proper and the assessee would be entitled to the entire refund claim of ₹ 4.50 crores. As regards the Revenue’s appeal, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a common order as they arises out of the same set of facts and circumstances. 2. M/s. Maruti Udyog is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and is a good prime tax payer. It so happened that on 31-3-1992, the assessee s Jurisdictional Central Excise Assistant Commissioner made an oral request to them to deposit some amount in the exchequers accounts. As is common knowledge, such requests are usually made for increase in the Revenue collections during a particular financial year and to neutralize the short falls, if any, for the year. The assessee accepted the said request of the Department and deposited an amount of ₹ 4.5 crores vide TR-6 challan, by making a debit entry in their PLA account. The said deposit were made und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee subsequently claimed the refund of the same vide letter dated 14-5-1992. In response to the said letter, the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund of ₹ 4,06,55,187/- in his file on 2-5-1995, by making endorsements on the copy of the PLA extract and the relevant TR-6 challans. However, no orders was passed by the Assistant Commissioner and as per the assessee, no refunds were actually given to them. 5. In the meanwhile the dispute in respect of the duty liability on the vehicles originally exported, damaged and returned to the assessee s factory was going on and the two show cause notices issued to the assessee on 3-1-1992 and 2-4-1992 were subsequently dropped by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide his ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by taking note of the file order of Assistant Commissioner allowing the refund of ₹ 4.06 crores and rejected the balance on the ground that the assessee did not challenge the said file order of the Assistant Commissioner and as such he is bound by the same. 8. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) stands challenged by the assessee on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner only sanctioned the refund claim in his file and never passed an appealable order. As such, there was no question of challenging the same. The appealable order was subsequently passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 23-1-1996 sanctioning refund of ₹ 2,71,78,973/- and rejecting the balance of ₹ 1,71,21,027/-. If the earlier file order of Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is in these circumstances that Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund of ₹ 4.06 crores approximately. However, instead of allowing the refund of the entire deposit of ₹ 4.50 crores, he has restricted the said refund to ₹ 4.06 crores by taking note of the file sanction by the Assistant Commissioner on 4-5-1995 and by holding that as the assessee did not file any appeal against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the refund has to be restricted to ₹ 4.06 crores approximately. 11. Admittedly the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund of ₹ 4.06 crores approximately in his file only on 4-5-1995, by making endorsement on the copy of PLA extract and the relevant TR-6 challan. There was admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f non-availability of original documents by the Assistant Commissioner adopted in his order dated 23-1-1996 is no longer available to the Revenue for denial of a part of the amount deposit so made by the assessee. As such, we find no merits in the Revenue s prayer. 13. The gist of the above development show that the appellant had made an ad hoc deposit of ₹ 4.50 crores on 31-3-1992; that they subsequently filed the refund claim; the said refund claim was dealt by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 23-1-1996; that the said order rejecting the part of the refund claim was passed prior to the order dated 9-11-1998 passed by the Commissioner dropping the demand relatable to the export vehicles; that the said order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
