9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27,270/- has not been paid by the appellant during the period 2009-10 to 2012-13 in contravention of Rule 6 (3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The said amount was payment to be received alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. The said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original bearing No.021-14-15 dated 27.3.2015. An appeal against the said order was filed. Thereafter, this Tribunal passed Final Order No.51578/2019 dated 13.11.2019 holding that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked by the department. The demand for extended period with effect from 2009 to 2012 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-determine amount of service tax on trading activity of the appellant. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod stands already set aside consequent thereto the major portion of demand has been set aside. The amount as was deposited pending adjudication has acquired the character of pre-deposit. There is no time limit applicable for seeking refund of the amount of pre-deposit. Hence the refund should have been granted. Ld. Counsel also impressed upon that the Order-in-Original as well as the one under challenge are miserably silent about citing any ground for rejecting refund claim. While relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1997 (89) ELT (SC). The order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal to be allowed. 7. While rebutting these submissions, ld.DR has men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Impressing upon, no infirmity in the order and that the claim have been hit by time limitation, the order is prayed to be upheld and the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 8. Having heard rival contentions and perusing the entire record including appeal memo, final order dated 13.11.2019 as has been obtained through the case information system, it is observed that this Tribunal had set aside the entire demand pertaining to the extended period of limitation prior to 2012. The only demand re-determined for the normal period is for an amount of Rs.1,02,309/-. This is also observed that pending adjudication after issuance of show cause notice dated 15.10.2014 the appellant had deposited Rs.5,25,141/- alongwith interest Rs.2,77,582/- vide two s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt deposited under section 35F. Hence the question of applicability of section 35FF does not arise. 10. The only another provision for refund under CEA is section 11B. It is also admitted fact that amount of Rs.4,22,832/- was deposited after issuance of show cause notice towards proposed duty only. Thus refund will fall under section 11B only. Pursuant to the final order of this Tribunal, vide O-I-O dated 23.10.2020, the duty demand confirmed is only to the extent of Rs.1,02,309/-. Hence the balance of the amount deposited being akin to pre-deposit, is to be refunded to the appellant alongwith interest. 11. Coming to second issue of limitation, once it is and held that the refund is under section 11B of the Act, the time limit of one year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
