2005 (10) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The respondents paid Rs. 65,05,506/- (Rupees Sixty-five lacs five thousand five hundred six only) in pursuance of an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 8th Septenter, 2005 and preferred an appeal against the said order to Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The respondents claimed a refund of the abovesaid amount on the gr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,05,506/- (Rupees Sixty-five lacs five thousand five hundred six only) paid by the respondents is in the nature of deposit under Section 35F. The said amount was paid in pursuance of an order finalizing provisional assessment. The amount was not paid as pre-deposit ordered by the Commissioner. (c) Provisions of Section 11B governing refunds would apply in f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e novo proceedings are completed. 4. The entire controversy can be put in a narrow compass. The respondents paid duty in pursuance of an order of assessment and preferred an appeal against the order. The Commissioner who entertained the appeal set aside the order of assessment and ordered tie novo proceedings. The respondents then applied for the refund of duty paid. It is settled law that when a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X