TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided against Revenue. - E/1681/2009-EX[SM] - A/70724/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 21-3-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR) for Appellant Shri S.R. Agrawal, Advocate, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.37-CE/APPL/KNP/2009 dated 13/03/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Kanpur. 2. The issue in this appeal, filed by the revenue is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in holding that the refund claim, filed by the respondent-assessee is not time barred as under the facts and circumstances, the amount in question was paid under protest. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order have been pleased to record a finding that on the date the payment made at the said material time, the amount was deposited, as a precautionary measure to cover up any liability that may arise in future, consequent to completion of investigation and adjudication of show cause, if any. There being no confirmed dues or outstanding dues on the said date, the said amount cannot be said to be deposit of duty but was in the nature of revenue deposit. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have also relied on the Ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. wherein it have been held that- where a person proposes to contest his liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as such the payment is by way of revenue deposit for which there is no time limit for grant of refund. The learned Counsel also states that against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28/04/2005, these respondents along with others had filed appeal before this Tribunal, contesting the confirmation of the demand of ₹ 03,78,283/- by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and this Tribunal vide Final Order No.749-751/2011-EX dated 12/08/2011 have been pleased to grant further relief by limiting the confirmation of demand to ₹ 40,022/- along with penalty of ₹ 20,000/-. In this view of the matter, it can be said that the refund application is well in time even under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. 6. Having considered the riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
