2014 (11) TMI 994

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts paid will be a case of ‘Deposit’ and will not be a situation of payment of duty when on merits Respondent got a favourable order from the appellate channel. The amount so paid was not recovered on the invoices and department has also not rejected the refund claim on unjust-enrichment. Accordingly, it is held that amounts paid by the Respondent was a ‘Deposit’ and not payment of duty when on merits the case was decided in favour of the Respondent. - Decided against Revenue.
Shri H.K. Thakur, Member (T) Shri Alok Srivastava, AR, for the Appellant. Ms. Richa Goyal, CS, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against OIA No. 35/2013(BVR)/SKS/Commr(A)/Ahd, dated 27-2-2013. Under the OIA dated 27-2-2013, firs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... E.L.T. 84 (Tri. Bang.)]. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Brief facts of the case are that appellant paid certain amounts during the course of investigation and contested the issue on merits in the appeal proceedings. The amounts paid by the present Respondent were considered sufficient by CESTAT in an appeal filed by Respondent for satisfying the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Respondents won the case on merits and sought refund of the amounts paid. It is the case of the Revenue that as refund sought was after the period of limitation as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the same should be considered as time barred and that first appellate authority has wrongly a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elevant and are reproduced below :- "3.1 In view of the above decision, it was urged that the lower authority could not have applied the general law of limitation to reject the refund claim. In any case, since the amount is a deposit, Section 11B is not applicable and the revenue ought to have suo motu refunded the same. My attention was also invited to Supreme Court's decision in the case of Shiv Shankor Dal Mills v. State of Haryana - AIR 1980 (S.C.) 1037 wherein it has been held as follows : Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's money, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the Dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, on the virtu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X