9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of condition of DEEC notification No. 203/92 or 204/92 were conducted by the officers of Custom and Excise department. During the investigation the appellants M/s. India Steel International jointly with ISI Bars Ltd. deposited Rs. 40 lakhs and Rs. 9,32,974/- vide TR 6 Challan No. 1/94-95 dated 13-02-1995 and Challan No. 2/94-95 dated 24-2-1995 respectively. Subsequently the case was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. S/16/MISC/463/95 Gr. VII/DC/BEL/ ISI/95 dated 7-5-1997, wherein the demand of Rs. 10,47,651/- along with the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs were confirmed on M/s. ISI Bars Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed on Shri Sudhir Gupta, Director of M/s. ISI Bars Ltd. The show cause notice against M/s. India Steel Interna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count actually bifurcated amount was accounted for and shown as receivable under the head of loan and advances in the respective balance sheet of both the companies. She also submits that both the appellants undertake to give the affidavits as disclaimer to each other to avoid any further claim at later stage, as regard the ground of rejection that original documents as proof having deposited the amount not submitted by the appellants, the ld Counsel submits that the original TR 6 challans are not traceable, however, there is no dispute regarding the deposit of amount vide TR 6 challan, which has been recorded in the adjudication order dated 28-5-1997 in para XV. She has also invited attention to the letter F. No. DC/BEL/ISI/95/PTS, dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and refund sought there against has been separately shown in the financial accounts i.e. balance sheet of both the appellants, if that is so, there is no difficulty in deciding the refund to both the appellant after verification of balance sheet of both the appellants. To avoid any claim or counter claim subsequent to the sanction of the refund by either of the appellant, I agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel that the affidavit of disclaimer can be accepted to be given by both the appellants. In view of the above I do not find any reason in rejection of refund applications of the appellants. As regard the allegation of the Revenue regarding the non-submission of the original documents evidencing deposit of refund amount. I am of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the assessee of the use of his money unreasonably. Refunds are made by crossed cheques in the name of the importer. Cheques are sent by registered post in the address of the assessee available in the file. As such there is no scope for any unauthorised person claiming and obtaining any refund or any duplication of the refund, unless the authority making the refund is negligent in his duties. Situation is the same even if the refund is after several years, if the file is still available. Therefore, I am of opinion that these contentions are raised only to find out some reason or other to deny the petitioner, the legitimate refund due to the petitioner in the writ petition. In view of above judgment coupled with facts as discussed above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
