9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute in respect of the clearances made by the respondent to their sister unit they were asked to pay some additional amount of duty. Accordingly, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 61,808/- well in advance in their PLA account on 29.03.2004. Subsequently they produced CAS-4 certificate before the authorities and the valuation dispute was settled in their favour by accepting the value at which the goods were cleared by the respondent. Accordingly, they filed a refund claim of Rs. 61,808/- on 29.07.2004. Revenue returned the application to the respondent on the ground that the same has been filed pre-mature inasmuch as investigation about the valuation work was still going on. Accordingly, appellant resubmitted their claim on 28.10.2005, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was filed on 29.07.2004. Such refund application was not accepted by the Revenue and was returned after the completion of the investigation. The same was re-filed by the assessee on 28.10.2005. There is no date available on record with regard to completion of the investigation. Otherwise also we note that when an assessee deposits the amount by making a debit entry in their PLA account during the course of investigation, when some dispute on the valuation is going on, such debit has to be held as deposit and not as duty. In any case the assessee has no legal obligation to make a deposit of said amount during the pendency of the investigation which dispute ultimately got resolved in their favour. As such application filed by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being asked to which order the Revenue is relying upon, as a consequence of which refund arises ld. AR is not in a position to show any such order. In fact, we find that there was no order on the valuation and it is during the investigation itself , the valuation was found in favour of the assessee. Otherwise also as already observed, the assessee was under no legal obligation to make the deposit during the investigation. As such we agree with the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that having filed the refund application on 29.07.2004, the respondent would be entitled to the interest in terms of the provisions of Section 11BB of the Act. 7. In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
