9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount deposited under protest is not to take the benefit of time limit, but liability of duty as alleged - Further, if Revenue is of the view that this amount could not be collected at that stage, the Revenue was free to refund the said amount but the respondent enjoyed the amount without any authority of law. The ld. AR failed to show that in case the amount deposited under protest is governed under Section 11AB of the Act for claims of interest. The appellant is entitled for interest on delayed refund from the date of deposit till its realization @12% p.a. - Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 60026 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60889/2021 - Dated:- 27-8-2021 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Parle International Ltd 2001 (127) ELT 329 (Guj.), the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad.). 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR opposes the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that the appellant intimated to the department and paid the duty on zinc skimming and zinc ash under protest. The issue of its excisability which was sub-judice. There was no reference to any direction, verbal or written from the respondent to the appellant. The lodging of the protest only enables the appellant to cross the bar of time limit prescribed under Section 11B(1) in terms of second proviso thereof. It does not change the nature of the duty so deposited into a dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. UOI 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) (ii) UOI vs. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories 2016 (333) ELT 193 (SC) (iii) MGM International Exports Ltd vs. ACST Madras 2021-TIOL-989-HC-MAD-ST (iv) S R Polyvinyl Ltd vs. CC 2020 (371) ELT 283 (Del) (v) 3F Industries Ltd vs. ACC Nagapattinam 2020 (373) ELT 463 (Mad) (vi) Tanna Electrical Co vs. CCGST Mumbai 2020 (35) GSTL 129 (Tri. Mumbai) (vii) Veer Overseas Ltd vs. CCE Panchkula 2018 (15) GSTL 59 (Tri. L.B.) (viii) J K Cement Works vs. CCE 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj.) (ix) Manisha Pharmo Plast Pvt Ltd vs. UOI- 2020 (374) ELT 145 (SC) (x) Dee Kay Exports vs. UOI 2020 (371) ELT 200 (P H) (xi) Om Refoils Ltd vs. UOI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: 23 . It has been consistent view of various Courts that any amount, deposited during pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation is in the nature of deposit made under protest or pre-deposit and, therefore, principles of unjust enrichment would not be attracted. 35 . The consensus of the authorities of various High Courts as well as Supreme Court is that any amount received by Revenue, as deposit or pre-deposit i.e. unauthorizedly or under mistaken notion, etc., cannot be retained by Revenue since it has no authority in law to retain such amount and it must be refunded with interest. 8. Same view was taken by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Parle International Ltd (supra) and Hon ble Madras High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
