9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri H.S. Anantha Padmanabha, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)].- This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 251/2007-C.E., dated 30-11-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturers of shikakai powder, shikakai paste, herbal shikakai powder and detergent powder bearing brand name SAMRAT, had filed a refund claim on 17-5-07 for an amount of Rs. 42,29,036/- being duty and adjudication levies paid under protest. There are two parts on the issue involved. The first part starts with an offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -4-2000 for the goods cleared during March and April 2000 (non payment of Service Tax on carriage inwards), as there is no evidence to show that the amount has been paid under protest, (ii) Interest on pre-deposit of Rs, 4,56,000/- made as pre-deposit on 26-7-2001 vide T.R.6 Challan No. 1/01 against Stay Order No. 324/2001 and is not paid under protest, as the same is pre-deposit. Therefore, interest on pre-deposit does not arise. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (A), who after considering the submissions made by the appellants came to the same conclusion and dismissed their appeal. The appellants are before us against such an order. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this amount has been taken as credit by the appellant in RG-23A Part-II as an amount which is ineligible to be taken as credit by them. The said amount has been deposited by the appellant vide TR-6 Challan dated 27-3-2000 and 11-4-2000. On perusal and scrutiny of the entire records, we find that the said amount has been debited in PLA and there is no mention of amount being paid 'under protest'. Since, the issue involved in this case is regarding the non- eligibility of the credit of duty on inward transportation, the issue which was not challenged by the appellant before the lower authorities as to the payment of amount being under protest, we find that the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim of amount of Rs. 27,800/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gaged in the manufacture of aerated water, and his claim for Modvat credit of Rs. 1.10 crores, was declined by the Commissioner. On an appeal and stay petition, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 80/- lakhs. The petitioner made the said deposit on 7-2-1996. The Tribunal vide its order dated 17-8-1999 set aside the Commissioner's order and the case was remanded for fresh decision. In pursuance to this order, the petitioner submitted an application for refund of the amount along with interest, The Hon'ble High Court after hearing both sides came to the following conclusion:- "12 After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner was entitled to the refund. However, as at present, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
