9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot 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 on 29.07.2004 in respect of the deposit made by them on 22.03.2004, is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation. Inasmuch as the same was within the period of limitation, we agree with the views of the Commissioner (Appeals). Unjust enrichment - deposit was made by the appellant as a lumpsum amount by making debit entry in their PLA account without raising any supplementary invoice or any other document - Held that:- if no invoice was ever raised by the respondent, the question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A: Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Ms. Neha Garg, ld. DR for the Revenue and Shri Vipul Agarwal, ld. Advocate for the respondent- assessee. It is seen that as a result of some valuation dispute 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 ₹ 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 ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hearing both the sides, we find that two legal issues as to whether the refund claim filed by the respondent was barred by limitation and as to whether the same was hit by unjust enrichment. As regards bar of limitation, we find that the appellant debited the duty in their PLA on 22.03.2004 and claim 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal claim filed on 29.07.2004 in terms of the provisions to Section 11BB of the Act. The contention of the ld. AR is that such refund claim has arisen as a consequential relief and as such the interest provision would be applicable from a period of three months from the consequential order. However, on 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
