TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited by the officers of DGAE, Calcutta on 29.8.96, who searched their factory premises and seized various records/documents for the alleged evasion of duty. During the post seizure investigations the appellants deposited, in toto, an amount of ₹ 9,19,286/- (rupees nine lakh nineteen thousand two hundred eighty six) under the cover of various letters. The first such amount of ₹ 5,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the proceedings by the Commissioner vide his order dt. 31.10.97, the appellant approached the Revenue on 5.2.98 for refund of the amount so deposited by them during adjudication. However, they were issued a show cause notice on 9.2.99 seeking to deny the refund of the said amount on the ground of time bar as also on the ground of unjust enrichment. The said show cause notice culminated into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er pleaded that while depositing the amount in question, they had clearly intimated that the same may be held as suspense account and such deposit is not towards any duty. Shri Banerjee also refers to a number of decisions of the Tribunal holding such deposit made during investigation, is not hit by the provisions of Section 11B. 5. Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. JDR submits that preamble of their lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LT 889 (Tribunal-Delhi), it was held that duty deposited by party while pursuing appellate remedy to be considered as duty paid under protest and limitation of six months is not applicable. I also find that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Parle International Ltd. Vs. UOI has held that the amounts deposited by the petitioner during adjudication proceedings to be regarded as dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
