9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee company it was not permissible to the revenue to recover the dues of the Tubes Company from the monies due and payable to the assessee as both are different legal entities – no infirmity in tribunal’s order – appeal of revenue dismissed - 1617 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2008 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. Shri R.M. Chhaya, Central Govt. Counsel, for the Appellant. None ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Limited? 2. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant. It was contended that provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) permit deduction of the amount payable to a person from whom certain sums of duty are required to be recovered. That in the present case the respondent-assessee was a company who was entitled to rebate of duty to the extent of Rs. 5,91,964/- and R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent-assessee. Therefore, the revenue was entitled to effect recovery by adjusting the rebate due to the respondent-assessee against the outstanding demand in case of the Tubes Company. In support of the submissions reliance has been placed on Apex Court decision in case of Macson Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 424 (S.C.) to submit that the principle of Rule 230(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubes Company. Section 11 in fact permits such adjustment only when in hands of the same person the monies are recoverable on the one hand and monies are also payable on the other hand to the same person. Therefore, if any monies were payable to the Tubes Company it would be open to the revenue to effect recovery by adjusting such payable amount. The Apex Court decision in case of Macson Marbles Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
