9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate proceedings under the indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for adjustment of the entire amount of Rs. 5,53,937/- [ Rs. 2,37,403 + Rs. 3,16,535/-] that was pre-deposited at the time of filing of appeal before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). This writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. - Honourable Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.Sai Prasanth For the Respondents : M/s.Umesh Rao. K Senior Standing Counsel. ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 17.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax as pre-deposit by the petitioner stands confirmed before CESTAT vide order dated 12.03.2018 in filing the appeal Misc. Order No.40276 of 2018 in A.No.ST/COD/41893/2017 while condoning the delay of 189 days. 7. Meanwhile, the petitioner opted to settle the dispute with the department under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 ( hereinafter referred to as Scheme) announced under Finance Act, 2019 with effect on 01.09.2019. 8. The petitioner filed a declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 dated 17.12.2019 in terms of Section 124(2) of the aforesaid Scheme. A sum of Rs. 5,53,937/- [ Rs. 2,37,403 + Rs. 3,16,535/-] pre-deposited by the petitioner was adjusted against the amount payable by the petitioner under the SVLDRS Scheme. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that it is open to the petitioner to pay the balance amount that was determined vide impugned order dated 17.02.2020 in Form SVLDRS-3 and seek for refund of the amount paid in excess towards pre-deposit before Gurugram Commissionerate in Uttar Pradesh. 15. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. 16. There is no dispute that the amount that the amount that was confirmed vide Order in Original No.11/2016-ST dated 26.02.2016 by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise was Rs. 31,65,352/-. There is also no dispute the petitioner had initially pre-deposited a sum of Rs. 2,37,402/- being 7.5% of Rs. 31,65,352/- at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
