9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020, upheld. 2. Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of transformers. Appellant is a small scale unit and availed the benefit of small scale notification no. 8/2003-CE. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the period 1.4.2009 to 29.11.2011, appellant got a tender to supply transformers to Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam. Since the Appellant did not have the required capacity to manufacture, it got the same manufactured from Rajasthan Transformers Electrical Ltd. (RTE) and received back the same into its factory. Thereafter the same goods were sold on payment of duty under the cover of invoice. Department officers visited the appellant's unit and conducted search. Department was of the view that appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the same does not have character of duty, and therefore, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was deposited at the time of investigation and the same does not have character of duty and therefore the same cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was further argued that the appellant is entitled to interest on this pre deposit amount after three (3) months of the Tribunal's final order no. A/52000/2018-EX(DB) dated 23.5.2018. In support of the same, appellant relied upon the judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Vs. Alcatel Modi Network System Ltd. reported at 2008 (221) ELT 358 (P&H) wherein it has been consistently held that if the assessee has been contesting the matter challenging the imposition of duty upto Tribunal, then the amount deposited during investigation has be treated as "under protest" deposit only, and accordingly refund of the same can not be rejected on the ground, application not being filed in time i.e 1 year. 8. The Ld. DR for revenue has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the amount of Rs.10 lakhs was deposited by the appellant during the pendency of investigation and proceedings, is not duty, fine or penalty, but is to be treated as 'revenue deposit' and the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
