9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation proceedings, appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs which they have did so. Show cause notice dated 08.09.2008 was issued and was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and by Order-in-Original No. 34/2009-Adjn (ADC) (C.Ex) dated 30.10.2009 confirmed demands of duty of Rs. 25,76,136/- along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 16 lakhs was imposed. By the same order, the adjudicating authority appropriated the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as paid by the appellant during the investigation. Personal penalty of Rs. 16 lakhs was also imposed on the Managing Director of the appellant. Aggrieved by such order, an appeal was preferred to the first appellate authority. After following due process of law, the first a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late authority has not considered the factual matrix of realisation of cheques issued by the appellant in the Government Treasury. He draws our attention to Pg.77 in Appeal Memoranda, wherein the State Bank of India had given certificate that an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was debited to the account of appellant herein and credited to Government account by GAR-7 Challan No. 66038 dated 13.09.2007 & GAR-7 Challan No. 66044 dated 14.09.2007. It is his submission that once the amount stands credited to the account of Government, the question of debiting PLA and denying refund claim only on this ground is incorrect. He would also draw our attention to Final Order No. 603 & 604/2011 dated 15.09.2011, passed by this bench, when the matters were remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the amounts involved. It is his submission that since amounts are not debited in the PLA, it cannot be stated that the said amount was paid to the Government during investigation. 5. I have considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of amount of Rs. 25 lakhs which is rejected. The findings of the first appellate authority for rejecting such refund claim are at Para 5.2.1 which is reproduced. "5.2.1. As regards the other ground for rejection of refund claim it is mentioned in the impugned order that the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- which was deposited against the case registered was taken as credit in their PLA and retained this credit balance; the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant had not debited amount in PLA and hence not eligible for refund is totally incorrect proposition. It is also to be noted that Tribunal has also recorded that this amount is debited by the appellant to the Government Treasury. On perusal of certificate issued by the State Bank of India which is annexed to appeal memoranda at Pg. 77, we do find that SBI has categorically stated that amounts are debited to appellant's account on 13th and 14th September, 2007 which would mean that the amounts have been credited with CBEC/Government of India. On such overwhelming evidence indicating the payment to the Government Treasury, I find that both the lower authorities were in error in not sanctioning the refund claims of Rs. 25 lakhs to appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
