TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) [ 2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT] and ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV [ 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] are not applicable to the facts of this case. These judgments held that the process of refund is only a mechanical process based on an assessment already made and the officer sanctioning refund cannot revise the assessment already made. He can sanction refund only if it flows from the assessment. Therefore, only when an assessment (including self assessment) is made and consequently an amount is paid, refund cannot be sanctioned unless the assessment is appealed against and modified in appeal. Unlike in refunds, the procedure for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture Electronic Power steering. Their records for the period October 2008 to April 2012 were audited and it was pointed out that they cleared the goods at a price below their cost of production. Accordingly, they were asked to pay the differential duty which they paid in part through their RG 23A Part II (CENVAT account) and partly in cash. They also filed a letter of protest dated 25.11.2013. No show cause notice under Section 11A was issued to the respondent demanding the differential duty and to appropriate the duty already debited. Thereafter, the respondent filed a refund claim of the amount reversed under protest. A show cause notice dated 8.7.2015 was issued to the respondent asking them to explain as to why the refund claim shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although audit team raised objection and the respondent reversed the amount along with interest and protest letter was sent by the respondent to the Department but no show cause notice was issued to the respondent for appropriation of amount reversed by the respondent. 7. As the above facts are not in dispute, the amount reversed by the respondent can only be treated as a deposit and as no assessment order has been passed, therefore, the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries (supra) and ITC (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case. These judgments held that the process of refund is only a mechanical process based on an assessment already made and the officer sanctioning refund cannot revise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Century Metal Recycling Pvt Ltd vs UOI (2009 (234) ELT (234) and upheld by the Supreme Court [2009 (244) ELT- A57 (SC)] As far as the amount deposited by the Petitioners is concerned, case of the petitioners is that the same was deposited under coercion. Case of the respondents was that the same was deposited voluntarily. Whatever be the position, unless there is assessment and demand, the amount deposited by the Petitioners cannot be appropriated. No justification has been shown for retaining the amount deposited except saying that since it was voluntarily deposited. In view of this admitted position, the petitioners are entitled to be returned the amount paid. The facts of the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
