TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.N. Panda, Member (J) [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - 1. These appeals arising out of the Orders-in-Original Nos. 13-15/06 all dated 31-1-2006, are taken together for hearing and disposal as common issues are involved in all these appeals. These appeals involve confirmation of demands of over Rs. 50.00 crores against the appellant-companies and imposition of equal amount of penalties on these companies. In addition, there are three personal penalties of Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand) each. The main dispute concerns interpretation of exemption Notification No. 8/04-CE. dated 21-1-2004 as amended by Notification No. 28/04-CE. dated 9-7-2004, the benefit of which has been claimed by the appellants and which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us as well as detailed written submissions made later on by both sides. We find that the appellants had kept the department informed when they opened the impugned Escrow Account and deposited the impugned amount therein. As and when the department asked them to open separate accounts in respect of units located in different States, the appellants had complied with it. Similarly, when the department took objection regarding signing of a tripartite agreement, the appellants had signed the same and have submitted that though this was done at a later point of time, the same has been made applicable to the past period also. As regards the appellants' direction to the bank to put certain amount of money in an interest bearing account, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or misutilised in any manner. The clarification contained in the letter dated 31-7-2006 written by the Minister of State for Finance amply vindicates the stand of the appellants that there is no bar regarding earning of the interest on amount in the Escrow Account. We take note of the emphatic submission by the learned Advocate, Shri T.R. Rustagi on behalf of the appellants that the interest earned has also not been appropriated or diverted, but has only added to the amount in the Escrow Account and therefore, has made available a greater amount of money for being spent for the development purposes in the North-East Region thereby fulfilling the objective of the Notification to a greater extent. We are of the opinion that the Adjudicating C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we set aside the duty-demands including the demand of interest and the penalties imposed. 7. The impugned Notification has a condition that the amount deposited in the Escrow Account is required to be withdrawn and invested in the prescribed manner within two years from the date of deposit. In view of the unjustified action taken by the department, the appellants have rightly claimed before us that they could not withdraw the amount within the prescribed period, nor could they invest the same, which is required to be done within sixty days after the date of withdrawal. It has also been submitted before us that unless the Tribunal makes a specific direction permitting withdrawal, the relief granted by us by way of setting aside the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
