TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N OF INDIA ORS. [ 2017 (5) TMI 759 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the conduct of audit team to collect duty at the initial stage is not authorised by any law in force and hence is held illegal. The appellant is entitled for the refund claim of the amount deposited on 09.07.2018 during investigation along with interest @12% on the aforesaid demand to be calculated from the said date of deposit - application allowed. - EXCISE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 50237/2022 in EXCISE APPEAL No. 51056/2021 - MISCELLANEOUS ORDER No. 50178 /2022 - Dated:- 6-5-2022 - DR. MRS RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Parth Mullick, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER Argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted at the time when audit of the appellant was got conducted by the department. Admittedly, even the show cause notice was not issued to the appellant. The impugned Final order has discussed the findings of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Digipro Import and export Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India reported as [2017 (350) ELT 145 (Del)] wherein the conduct of audit team to collect duty at the initial stage is not authorised by any law in force and hence is held illegal. Further perusing the decision of M/s. Parle Agro Pvt Ltd. (supra) along with the impugned Final Order, I also endorse the following findings: 30. In the present case, the provisions of section 11B of the Excise Act would not be applicable. This is for the reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while accepting the appellants contention has dismissed the departmental appeal in following words: 2 . On a careful consideration, I notice that the assessee had cleared inputs for processing under Rule 57F(4) which were not received back fully within the stipulated period. The appellants paid the duty of Rs 4,71,197 in RG 23-A, dated 30-9-97 as directed by the preventive team of Central Excise Officers. However, the goods were received back subsequently and hence they filed refund application. The question is as to whether the Commissioners has power to condone the delay in a circumstance when the inputs were received after a period of 60 days. The Commissioner has noted that the proviso of Rule 57 was amended to 180 days and found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
