2006 (7) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erest @ 9% - 18 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2006 - [Order]. - Some excise dispute appears to have arisen between the Respondent and the Appellant. During the pendency of the dispute, one Shri Rajiv Gupta who is the authorised signatory and Manager of the Respondent as well as the Director of M/s. Shakti Shiva Magnets Private Ltd. was arrested for evading the excise duty. On 21st September, 1997 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .7 lakhs, which had been deposited towards excise duty in terms of the bail order dated 21st September, 1997. The contention urged was that since no excise duty was payable, the Appellant could not withhold this amount. For some reason, the Appellant insisted upon giving the refund only to Rajiv Gupta, who was the beneficiary of the bail order dated 21st September, 1997. 3. When the refund was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty is payable by the Respondent or even by M/s. Shakti Shiva Magnets Pvt. Ltd., the latter having settled its disputes under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998. It hardly matters to the Appellant if the amount is refunded to the Respondent or Rajiv Gupta, who is the authorised signatory and Manager of the Respondent. 5. Under the circumstances, we do not think that the impugned order of the T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X