TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of show-cause notice stands initiated against the appellants and the deposit so made by them does not stand forfeited or appropriated towards any confirmed demand. As such, in my view, the appellants are right in contesting that deposit made during the audit cannot be held to be falling under the umbrella of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/441/2009-SM - Final Order No. 21716 / 2015 - Dated:- 3-8-2015 - Hon'ble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member,J. For the Appellant : Mr. B. N. Gururaj, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Pakshirajan, A.R. ORDER Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Printed Circuit Board falling under Chapter heading 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd., which stands upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2011 (23) E.L.T. 97 (Kar.)], laying down that the GTA service utilized for outward transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the customers premises are cenvatable. As such, it is to be only seen as to whether the refund would be barred by limitation or not. 4. It is well settled law that the officials working under the Central Excise Act cannot travel beyond the act and are bound by the provisions of the Central Excise Act. However, the real legal issue required to be considered in the present case is as to whether the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act requiring the assessee to file re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 290/6/97-CX dated 20.1.1997, the Tribunal observed as under : 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the amount paid by the appellants on the direction of the audit team is to be considered as an amount of duty payable or an amount paid by them to the Revenue for which they have filed a refund claim. 6. On the factual matrix, I find that there is no dispute regarding the clearances of the goods to the SEZ units. It is also undisputed that the clearances which were made to SEZ units are not liable for duty. The only dispute that has been created by the audit team is that the appellant has cleared the goods under ARE-1; without executing bond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
