9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d made the deposit on February 7, 1996. 2.On August 17, 1999 the order dated May 9, 1995, passed by the Commissioner, was set aside. The case was remanded for a fresh decision. In pursuance to this order, the petitioner submitted an application dated October 27, 1999 for refund of the amount deposited by it in accordance with the provisions of law. Various representations followed. On June 6, 2001 respondent No. 4, viz. the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, informed the petitioner that the amount has been sanctioned as refund 'by way of credit in Cenvat'. No interest was, however, determined or credited. The petitioner pointed out that the order was not in conformity with law. It was entitled to the amount deposited and interest thereo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this basis, the Counsel prays that the respondents should be directed to either refund the amount in cash or to credit it to the Cenvat Account of another unit being run by the petitioner. 6.On behalf of the respondent Mr. Rajesh Gumber has contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund in cash and that the orders passed by the Authorities are legal and valid. 7.After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the attitude adopted by the respondents is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. The demand was raised on May 9, 1995. A substantial amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner on February 7, 1996. The order of the Commissioner was set aside by the Tribunal on November 2, 1999. More than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Resultantly, it is pointed out that no useful purpose would be served by ordering refund of the amount. 11.Mr. Goyal submits that the petitioner has a right to file an appeal against the order. It is also entitled to pray for the waiver of pre-deposit. The levy being illegal, the amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be retained by the respondents. 12.After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner was entitled to the refund. However, as at present, it appears more equitable to order that the amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- along with interest, determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, shall be credited to the Cenvat Account of the petitioner's unit at Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
