TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... few entries of Creel Register which were cancelled pertained to imported partially oriented yarn and had sold draw twist yarn in guise of twisted yarn without payment of Central Excise duty; that under pressure to pay Excise duty, the Appellants handed over six post-dated cheques totalling Rs. 20 lakhs to the Superintendent, Central Excise along with TR 6 Challan under protest vide their letter dated 19-3-97; that the amount of six cheques was realized and credited to the account of the Central Government; that as their copies of TR 6 Challans were not received from the Department, they obtained three Certificates dated 5-10-99 from the Bank of Baroda as evidence of the fact of crediting of Rs. 20 lakhs to Government's account. 2.2 He, fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd claim during the pendency of the Appeal; that the Tribunal has finally set aside the said Order-in-Original vide Final Order Nos. CI/2679-82/WZB/2001, dated 3-9-2001 [2001 (134) E.L.T. 691 (Tri. - Mumbai)] with consequential relief. 3.1 The learned Advocate, submitted that the West Zonal Bench of the Tribunal, while granting stay vide Order Nos. CI/1865-68/WZB/2001, dated 16-7-2001, has treated the deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs as a pre-deposit and as finally the Order-in-Original dated 31-10-2000 demanding duty, etc. has been set aside with consequential relief vide Final Order dated 3-9-2001, they are eligible for the refund. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Monnet Industries Ltd. - 2003 (56) RLT 247 (CEGAT) where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Rules, 1944 are applicable. Finally he mentioned that as the Appellants had submitted the Certificates issued by Bank of Baroda evidencing payment, it can not be said that they have not submitted the documentary evidence; that further the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the fact of depositing the amount under the head of "Union Excise". He relied upon the decision in the case of K.K. Leather Mart v. CCE, Kanpur - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 96 (T) wherein the Tribunal has held that there is no justification to deny refund when the Appellant therein furnished the Certificate of the Manager of the State Bank concerned, instead of original TR 6 Challan which had been produced to the Department when the cancellation of the provisional b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal, waived the deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalties imposed. It is thus apparent that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs which was given by the Appellants during the course of investigation was treated by the Tribunal as a pre-deposit for the purpose of entertaining the Appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. In similar situations this Tribunal in the case of Monnet Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that "in view of this, the Revenue can not take the plea that Rs. 50 lakhs can not be regarded as pre-deposit under the provisions of Section 35F of the Act". It is also a fact that the confirmation of the demand of duty and imposition of penalties under Order-in-Original No. 13/2000, dated 31-10-2000 passed by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
