TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the investigation proceedings. It is in the nature of a pre-deposit. The appellant has deposited the amount of ₹ 3,38,749/- during investigation only with an intention of reducing the burden in case the litigation goes against him. There are no specific instances raised showing the amount being passed on to others. Merely because it was shown as expenditure, the department cannot conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f steam which is exempted from duty and used for supply of steam to the neighbouring unit which is under the same management. Appellants filed a detailed reply dated 10.07.2008. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority dropped the demand of ₹ 29,69,276/- and interest thereon, but imposed a penalty of ₹ 30,000/- under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, of this an amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im was sanctioned on 03.11.2009 and cheque was issued to the appellant. 4. The department then filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the sanction of the refund. Vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants are not eligible for refund for the reason that the amount deposited by them during the investigation is shown in their books of accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the said deposit is not subject to the test of unjust enrichment. Merely because the appellant had shown the amount as expenditure it cannot be concluded that the incidence of duty has been passed on to any other person. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgments in the case of (i) Vimal Microns Limited Vs.CCE, Ahmedabad [2009 (240) ELT 269 (Tri.-Ahd)], (ii) Gujarat State Fertilizers Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the nature of a pre-deposit. The appellant has deposited the amount of ₹ 3,38,749/- during investigation only with an intention of reducing the burden in case the litigation goes against him. There are no specific instances raised showing the amount being passed on to others. Merely because it was shown as expenditure, the department cannot contend that pre-deposit made by appellant is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
