9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund of Rs. 20 lacs paid by the Appellant during the course of investigation. 2. The facts of the matter are as follows. One M/s. Kunal Overseas Ltd. purchased on high sea sales bases large quantities of plastic moulding powders like HDPE, LDPE, PVC etc. from various industries including the Appellant and later on cleared them free of customs duty against advance licenses under DEEC Scheme. The advance licenses were granted under actual user condition. Subsequent investigations by DRI revealed that M/s. Kunal Overseas Ltd. had unauthorisedly sold the goods cleared free of duty in the local market in contravention of the actual user condition under the scheme. DRI investigated the matter and during investigation various names were surf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 20 lacs with interest @24%, but the same was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 9.11.2005. The Appeals filed by Revenue were also later on dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 10.6.2008 and while dismissing the Appeals this Tribunal observed that the contention of the Revenue that the Commissioner should not have directed suo motu refund of money, deposited by co-noticees during investigation is required to be rejected for the reason that refund has been directed only of the amount paid by them on their own account and amounts paid by them on account of the importer have been directed to be adjusted towards duty confirmed. The said order of the Tribunal was further challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they have produced their account statement also before the authorities below including the Balance sheet which clearly shows the amount of Rs. 20 lacs as receivable from Customs and this shows that the amount was paid by the Appellants on his own account and not on behalf of Kunal Overseas Ltd. Per contra learned Authorised Representative reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. He also refers to the finding of this Tribunal in the earlier round of Appeal which was filed by Revenue in the year 2002, in which this Tribunal while upholding the Order-in-Original dated 18.4.2001 passed by the Commissioner, held that the contention of the Revenue that the Commissioner should not have directed suo motu refund of money deposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.10.2007 or in any other communication by the Appellant to the Department nor any other communication which substantiate the argument of duress has been brought on record. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the Appellant that the aforesaid amount has been paid by the Appellant from their own account, but the wordings of the order dated 18.4.2001 are on their own account. There is a big difference between the meaning of the words from their own account and on their own account. The Appellant has to establish that the amount has been paid by them on their own account which they failed to establish through any of the documentary evidence produced by them. It is true that the revenue, in the Appeal filed by M/s. Kunal Overseas Ltd. be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
