9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ature of deposit and not duty, either on self-determination or determined by the Department. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala/Gutkha had deposited an amount of Rs. 45,74,277/-, during the period 10/02/2004 to 03/03/2004, during the investigation by the Department. Since the Department could not make out any case against the respondent, they sought refund of their deposit after lapse of about 4 years on the ground that as no Show cause Notice is issued there was no case against them. Initially, the Department denied the refund vide OIO dated 16/10/2008 on the ground that the respondent-assessee did not follow proper procedure as laid down under Section 11B of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f pre-deposit made in compliance to the order of Appellate Authority under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 & Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, but in the facts of the case, the Department got the amount deposited during investigation from the respondent-assessee but later on failed to establish the duty liability against them and also failed to issue a Show Cause Notice and adjudicate the case. The amount was held by the Department for more than 4 years without assigning any reason and due to this reason the respondent-assessees request for compensation in the shape of interest which was granted earlier by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the facts of this case are different from the case of pre-deposit under Section 35F of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ag Mishra, Advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee, stated that the issue is no longer res-integra and relies on the ruling of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore reported at 2009 (240) E.L.T. 124 (Tri. - Bangalore) wherein under similar facts where the amount was deposited during investigation on the directions of the Department and consequent to final order, the respondent-assessee claimed refund of the entire amount paid by them with interest. But the Assistant Commissioner ordered refund of only the principal amount paid by the respondent-assessee, as deposited. As regards interest the Assistant Commissioner recorded a finding to the ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Misc. Application in the above manner." 5. Being aggrieved the Revenue unsuccessfully preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and thereafter the SLP was also dismissed as reported in 2013 (297) E.L.T. A-149 (SC). The ld. counsel also relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Versus Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. reported at 2014(306) E.L.T. 26 (Madras), wherein also a question of valuation arose, and the respondent-assessee made on lump-sum deposit of Rs. 15,42,000/-. Thereafter the Department held that out of the said sum, a sum of Rs. 2,21,422/- alone is to be retained towards excise duty and relating to the balance amount, no order was passed. The respondent-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
