9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending demand notice issued to M/s EMI Transmission Ltd. After the order of the learned Commissioner dropping the demand, the appellant pursued the refund, which was sanctioned to them. Therefore, the demand is unsustainable. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 733 of 2011, 1533 of 2011 - A/86762-86763/2019 - Dated:- 13-9-2019 - HON BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. S. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anil Choudhary, DC, Auth. Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These two appeals are filed, one ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary No Objection from M/s EMI Transmission Ltd. In the meantime, the Department has issued a show-cause notice on 26.9.2005 to M/s EMI Transmission Ltd. and also to the appellant for recovery of ₹ 2,79,47,481/- proposing to deny benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 and also to appropriate the amount of ₹ 77,95,953/- paid by the appellant with interest and proposal for penalty. The said demand notice was adjudicated and the learned Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated against M/s EMI Transmission Ltd. and the appellant vide Order-in-Original No. 04/MS-04/Th-I/2009 dated 23.4.2009. Consequent to the said order, the appellant claimed refund of the entire amount of ₹ 77,95,953/- paid by them in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, after receiving the World Bank loan, they filed the refund claim but could not be pursued, due to pending demand notice issued to M/s EMI Transmission Ltd. After the order of the learned Commissioner dropping the demand, the appellant pursued the refund, which was sanctioned to them. Therefore, the demand is unsustainable. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that this Tribunal in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CCE 2017 (5) TMI CESTAT Ahmd, after taking into account the various judgments delivered by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout, i.e. both prior to and subsequent to World Bank assistance. In this scenario, the cash payment made by the appellants was rightly to be treated as a deposit and claim for its refund was rightly to be entertained without reference to the time-bar provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act. We have come across 2 Orders-in-Appeal, wherein similar payment of cash was considered to have been made under protest and accordingly the claim for its refund was allowed without reference to any time-bar provision. Admittedly, the view stands accepted by the Revenue. [Emphasis supplied] 6.2 CESTAT, Delhi in the case of CCE Ghaziabad Vs Power Grid Corpn of India (supra) observes as follows: We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
