9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011, the officers attached to the Headquarters Preventive, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, visited the factory premises and the registered office of the petitioner and recovered several records maintained by the petitioner. After drawing the mahazar, petitioner was informed that they had reasons to believe that the petitioner had adopted incorrect valuation for determination of the value of finished goods cleared in the Domestic Tariff Area. It is further contended by the petitioner that after a lapse of a week, the officers directed the petitioner to make payment of certain sum towards the duty liability to be determined by them as, according to the officers, the records seized disclosed incriminating material. Petitioner contends that yieldi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that petitioner deposited the amount voluntarily as against the liability on account of short payment of the dues, pending completion of the investigation. It is the further contention of the respondent that if at all there was any force exerted on the petitioner to deposit the amount, nothing prevented the petitioner to approach the higher authority, viz., the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, alleging that such force was exerted against them and that the amount was deposited under pressure. It is urged by the Counsel for the respondent that the remedy for the petitioner is to apply for refund before the competent authority, but not to rush to this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. on careful consideration of the respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of the petitioner is that it is not at all liable to pay this amount. Counsel for the petitioner is right and justified in drawing the attention of the Court to the observations made by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in somewhat similar circumstances, wherein it is held that when the payment has been received not according to law and the liability to make payment arises only when the tax liability is ascertained and not before that, the department would not be justified in collecting the amount and would be liable to return the same. However, in the facts of the said case, the authorities had not even issued any show cause notice for determination of the tax liability. Taking note of the said fact, the Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2012, after conducting necessary investigation, the authorities have issued the show cause notice and the petitioner is given time to submit his reply. If the petitioner submits his reply, the authorities will pass necessary orders recording a finding about the liability of the petitioner. 10. In such circumstances, in my considered view, having regard to the huge amount that is sought to be levied as duty payable against the assessee as per the show cause notice and in view of the fact that the entire proceedings can be expedited and completed by issuing a direction to the Commissioner to receive the reply from the petitioner and pass final orders within a period to be fixed by this Court, it is not appropriate to direct refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
