9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Panda, Member (J) Cross Objection No. 160/2004 Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri S .M. Tata, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. -1. Heard both sides 2. The Appellants are before the Tribunal because the claim for refund preferred by the Appellants before the Authorities below has been rejected on the ground of time bar. The Appellants claimed to have received the impugned goods from ten dealers and took credit in respect of the duty on such goods. During the investigation, the Appellants deposited the entire amount of duty equal to the credit taken by them and subsequently a Show Cause Notice was issued to them only for imposition of penalty. The penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the said decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Commissioner v. Parle International Ltd. - 2005 (188) E.L.T. A-81 (S.C.) and therefore the said High Court's decision and the Tribunal decision based on that decision are no longer good law. 3. Considering the submissions made by the ld. SDR and in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision cited above, we are unable to agree with the ld. Consultant's submission that the deposit of the impugned amounts can be taken as pre-deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Moreover, the pre-deposit under Section 35F pre-supposes issue of an adjudication order confirming a demand and pre-deposit of the same pending an appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applied. Here again, as rightly pointed out by the ld. SDR this is a case where there was a Show Cause Notice for raising the demand and the Tribunal had come to a finding that the demand was not sustainable. As such, this decision also does not cover the case of the Appellants before us where following the investigation, the Appellants had admitted the duty liability and have discharged the same without any dispute which is evident from the fact that no Show Cause Notice and adjudication proceedings were initiated in respect of the duty amount. If the Appellants felt the refund was due to them they should have applied for the same within the time limit prescribed under the law and followed the legal provisions relating to the grant of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
