9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly treated the adjudication that has taken thus far, as irrelevant. It is curious to note that the amount involved in this case is one, of pre-deposit and not the one recovered or collected from a manufacturer as excise duty. Another factor is that CEGAT has referred to a trade notification, which added strength and kept the entire issue beyond pale of doubt. Benefit that has accrued to the respondent on the basis of long drawn adjudication was denied to him - Though the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad, upheld such an act, the CEGAT, Bangalore, has taken the correct view and we do not find any substance in the questions that are framed in this CERC. - Decided against Revenue. - C.E.R.C. No. 10 of 2003 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division-III, Visakhapatnam, for refund of pre-deposit amount of ₹ 3,69,600/-. The Assistant Collector passed an order, dated 7-6-1994, holding that the respondent is not entitled for refund since the burden of duty was passed on to the consumers. He, however, directed that the amount shall be deposited in the consumer welfare fund constituted under Section 12C of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad, and the same was rejected on 18-4-1995. Thereupon the respondent approached the CEGAT, Bangalore, by way of further appeal. That was allowed on 2-8-2002 following its own order passed earlier as well as the judgments rendered by Bombay and Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The unreasonable and highhanded approach exhibited by the Assistant Collector has resulted in such a prolonged litigation and had in fact burdened the department to an additional liability, in the form of interest. The respondent claimed benefit under the aforesaid notification and the same was extended by the original authority. The appeal filed by the department, no doubt, was allowed. However, the same order was reversed by the CEGAT, New Delhi. In case the department was of the view that the pre-deposit amount remitted by the respondent, as a condition precedent for filing the further appeal before CEGAT need not be refunded, necessary submission in that behalf ought to have been made before CEGAT itself. When the application is file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
