9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents submitted in support of the claim for having made the pre-deposit by the appellant and to decide the issue of refund of pre-deposit of Rs.24 lakhs, it is deemed necessary to remand the case back to the original authority for fresh fact finding and for passing a speaking order. Interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund - HELD THAT:- The issue has been examined in detail and considering the factual position that the refund has been granted within three months time in respect of the sanctioned amount of Rs.2,50,61,298/-, there are no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is modified to the extent of allowing the appeal filed by the appellant in respect of refund of Rs.24 lakhs to be subjected to a process of verification in the de novo proceedings by the original authority. - HON BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Mahesh Raichandani, Advocate for the Appellant Shri C.S. Vinod, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : M. M. Parthiban Refund of pre-deposit made by the appellant involving an amount of Rs.24 lakhs paid during February 2004, March 2004, May 2004 and May 2008 is the issue in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and clearance of the finished goods based on the premise of electricity consumption. As such SCN's were issued and adjudicated vide O-I-O no. 3/2009/C dtd. 01.06.2009, 34/2009/C dtd. 31.12.2009 confirming duty of Rs.7,99,91,522/- and Rs. 2,02,53,671/- alongwith interest and penalty, respectively. Being aggrieved by the said Order-In-Originals party has filed an appeal before the (before the) CESTAT, Mumbai. CESTAT, Mumbai vide their Order No A/86363-86366/2019 DTD 07/08/2019 CESTAT, allowed party's appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original No. 3/2009/C dtd. 01.06.2009, Order-in-Original No. 34/2009/C dtd. 31.12.2009. xx xx xx xx xx The claimant then submitted their reply on 13.09.2019 wherein they submitted that the claim is filed for Rs. 2,50,61,298/- (i.e. 25% of Duty demanded in OIO no. 3/2009/C and 34/2009/C) along with interest. They also submitted that the challan wise payment of Rs. 3,00,10,950/- was made by 15.06.2012 in respect of three orders. 1.O-I-O No. 03/2009/C, 2. O-I-O 37-86/2009 and 3. O-I-O 34/2009/C, out of which Rs. 2,50,61,298/- was made in respect of orders O-I-O No. 03/2009/C, and 34/2009/C. They also submitted copy of Hon ble High Court (HC) order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad rejected the balance amount of pre-deposit claimed by the appellant as being not properly substantiated to have been eligible for refund being the pre-deposit paid by them. Further, in the appeal filed by the appellant, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had dealt with the issue in detail as follows: - 26. From the analysis of records of the Anti-evasion including orders-in-original, CESTAT orders and the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay permanent bench at Nagpur, I find that following points are very important in this case: xx xx xx xx xx (iv) From scrutiny of the documents, I don't find the mention of any pre-deposit amount of Rs.24,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant in this appeal in any of the documents including show cause notices and orders-in-original, except an amount of Rs.4,00,088/- in the O.I.O. No. 3/2009/C date 01/06/2009 and Rs.98,684/- in the O.I.O No. 34/2009 date 31/12/2009. In other words, an amount of total Rs.4,98,952/- only has been mentioned in both the orders-in-original and the same has been appropriated also against the total demand. xx xx xx xx xx (vi) When the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai granted stay against the orders-in-original dated 01/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is well within 3 months time prescribed as per Section 11B and 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 relevant during that time. (vii) In view of above, the Lower Authority has rightly not thought fit to consider the interest on the sanctioned amount of refund Rs.2,50,61,298/- 31. Keeping in view of the above discussions. I pass the following order: ORDER I uphold the Order-in-Original No.33/Ref/Dn-Kal/2019-20 dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner CGST Central Excise, Division Kalmeshwar Nagpur-II Commissionerate and reject the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appellant. 5. During the hearing and as a part of the appeal papers, the learned Advocate for the appellant referred to the letter of the appellant dated 27.12.2005 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise Range- Kamptee, Division-II, Nagpur informing that they had paid an amount of Rs.22 lakhs as per the oral direction of the Central Excise Preventive Department, who conducted investigation against the appellant by visiting their unit on 12.12.2004. Further, it is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that they had paid an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty amount. In fact the appellants have produced the TR6 Challans through which such payments were made as follows: Sl. No. T.R.6 Challan No. Date Name of Bank and date on which credited Amount of predeposit in Rs. Date of crediting in Bank for Govt. account 1. 15 dated 19.02.2004 State Bank of India, Gandhi Grain Market Branch, Nagpur 5,00,000 21.02.2004 2. 16 dated 27.02.2004 State Bank of India, Gandhi Grain Market Branch, Nagpur 5,00,000 01.03.2004 3. 19 dated 12.03.2004 State Bank of India, Gandhi Grain Market Branch, Nagpur 5,00,000 17.03.2004 4. 21 dated 30.04.2004 State Bank of India, Gandhi Grain Market Branch, Nagpur 7,00,000 07.05.2004 5. 03 dated 20.05.2008 State Bank of India, Itwari Branch, Nagpur 2,00,000 23.05.2008 Total amount of pre-deposit paid 24,00,000 7. From the above factual evidence and the then existing mission of Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) is, inter alia, to provide an efficient system by realizing revenue in a fair, equitable, transparent and efficient manner, it is a necessary responsibility for the field formation of CBEC-tax department, to lay down the specific ground on which the pre-deposit paid, is either eligible or not eligible to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
