9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l by the appellant. The notice issued to the appellant was only for the purposes of imposition of personal penalty, which in any case was also set aside by the Tribunal. As such it cannot be said that the amount was deposited by the appellant by reversing the Modvat credit is the 'duty' amount deposited in pursuance to any adjudication order or demand order. The same has to be treated as a mere deposit made by the appellant during the course of investigation, which has not culminated into any adjudication proceedings confirming the said deposit. As such I am of the view that the provisions of Section 11B laying down the limitation of six months for refund of duty would not apply to the said deposit made by the appellant. I according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very basis of imposition of penalty does not survive as the case made out against the dealers who allegedly issued the modvatable invoices without issuance of goods in question was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further observed that no order is required to be passed as regards the reversal of the Modvat credit inasmuch as the appeal relates to only imposition of penalty. 1.5 Thereafter the appellant filed a refund claim on 23-7-99 before the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that since the Revenue has not initiated any proceedings to confirm the said amount deposited by them during the course of investigations and the personal penalty imposed upon them has been set aside by the Tribunal, they are entitled to get th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants claim by observing as under :- 9. I have gone through the impugned order and also considered the submissions of the appellants. Here Modvat credit of Rs. 3,16,627.50 was reversed by the appellant by issuance of a cheque favouring Commissioner of C. Ex. Calcutta-II Commissionerate s on 14-10-97. They have debited the entire amount of Modvat credit without lodging any protest. But the Department also did not initiate the proceedings to appropriate the entire amount of Govt. Exchequer by issuing process under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get refund of duty already debited in the statutory record. But the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal as also of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in support of his defence. 4. I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jayant Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 188 (Tribunal - LB) has directed the Revenue to refund the amount deposited by the appellant during investigation along with payment of interest from the date of expiry of three months period from the date of application for refund till date of payment. Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Tiruchirapally v. Ravi Sankar Industries Ltd. - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1317 (Tribunal - Chennai) has observed that the deposit made by the assessee during the course of investigations cannot be treated to be duty inasmuch as the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
