9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a direction to the respondents to accept the amount of tax of Rs. 10,30,273.60/- which was returned inadvertently due to mismatch in the amount remitted. 02. As per the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is a registered company engaged in manufacturing of FRP Fans and Cooling Towers. By a notice dated 09.05.2017, the petitioners were directed to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 25,75,684/- should not be recovered from them under the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and why penalty as stated should not be imposed. Thereafter, by order dated 12.09.2018, respondent No.3 raised a demand of Rs. 25,75,684/- along with interest and penalty from petitioner No.1 and levied penalty of Rs. 13 Lakhs eac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remitted and the amount payable the system has returned the remittance. Thereafter, they approached respondent No.3 for acceptance of payment but since the scheme was already closed, no response was received by them. Thereafter, on 22.06.2021, the petitioners have once again received demand of tax of Rs. 25,75,684/- along with interest and penalty, hence have filed this petition. 06. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that return of remittance made by the petitioners was only on account of mismatch in the amount remitted and amount payable. Since after return of remittance a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs was automatically transferred in a fixed deposit in the bank, the balance in the account continued to be almost the same and petitioners d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been fully aware of non- transfer of the amount and have been enjoying the same ever since then by keeping it in a fixed deposit. The last date for scheme was 15.01.2022 which has lapsed hence no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shekhar Resorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 11 (All.) 08. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that as per petitioners they had transferred the amount of Rs. 10,30,274/- on 30.06.2020 which had been returned that day itself and a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh had been kept in a fixed deposit by the Bank. There is no material available on record except bald statements of petitioners tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter further and kept absolutely quite about it. They were served with a demand notice on 03.02.2021 requiring them to deposit dues of Rs. 25,75,684/ along with interest and penalty of 25,75,684/- by petitioner No.1 and penalty of Rs. 26 Lakhs by petitioners No.2 & 3 thereupon. The natural course of conduct for the petitioners upon service of the said notices would have been to take up the matter with the department informing it that they have already paid the amount under the Amnesty scheme hence are now not liable for payment of any amount as demanded. However, the petitioners did not do so and were again on 22.06.2021 served with another demand notice for the aforesaid amount. Yet they did not take up the matter with the department. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
