TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of investigation on 15-5-1989 and 6-8-1989 and a penalty not be imposed on them under Rule 173Q(1) in the contravention of Rules 9(2), 52A, 173F, 173G and 226 of Central Excise Rules. The Collector vide his order, dated 16-11-1993 on a contest made of this show cause notice, found as follows - "Another question before me is whether the said concession can be extended to the party without claiming it in the classification list. It is seen from the classification list filed by the party that the said concession under Notification 175/86 were not claimed by them. The question of dutiability of body built vehicles was a point of dispute during the relevant time and probably at that time as expressed by M/s. Suri Industries in their re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (ii) the refund of deposit of Rs. 1,01,800/- should not be sanctioned and credited to the consumer welfare fund established under Section 126 of the Act, as per provisions of Section 11B(2) of the Act." and vide his order dated 9-5-1994, rejected the refund on the ground of limitation, since he held that the duty deposit was paid on 15-6-1989 and 16-6-1989 and the refund claim was filed only on 15-12-1993. He also found no "unjust enrichment" in this case. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order now impugned found - "Para 3 - I have considered the submissions made and also gone through the case records carefully. The plea of the appellant that a sum of Rs. 1,01,800/- was made as revenue deposit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity after period of more than one year held by his Order-in-Original no duty was leviable. Therefore the question of appropriating any amount towards duty, does not arise and the amount paid should be refunded. (c) At the hearing the ld. Advocate referred the case law and relied upon 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) and 2000 (122) E.L.T. 537 (Tri.). 5. The Departmental Representative, reiterated the grounds in the impugned order. We have heard both sides and considered the material and found - (a) The nature of payment of Rs. 1,01,800/- made on 15-5-1989 and 16-6-1989 by the appellant consequent to the enquiry launched by the Headquarters, Preventive officers and even before the show cause notice, dated 26-6-1990 proposing the exigibili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of deposit...." In that case, an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was deposited, when the enquiries were in progress on 29-6-1994 and Rs. 11,85,240/- on 26-11-1993 and Rs. 12,64,022/- on 26-11-1993 were deposited after issue of show cause notice on 30-3-1994. The show cause notice issued in that case, was proposing demand of differential duty under Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q; the allegation in the show cause notice was contravention of Rules 9(1), 173C, 173F, 173G 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner got a favourable order from CEGAT and filed a Refund Application. However, they were issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
