1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appellate Tribunal Upholds Deposit Appropriation in Central Excise Appeal</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad upheld the appropriation of deposits totaling Rs. 1,06,00,000 made by the appellant against duty, penalty, and ... Refund - Amount deposited during investigations Issues involved:Whether deposits made during investigations are refundable.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad centered around the question of whether deposits totaling Rs. 1,06,00,000 made by the appellant during investigations were required to be refunded. The Joint Commissioner had confirmed a duty demand of approximately Rs. 47.21 lakhs, along with interest and penalty of a similar amount. The Joint Commissioner had already appropriated the deposited amount against the duty, penalty, and interest due as per the Order-in-Original. The appellant's advocate acknowledged this appropriation but indicated the intention to appeal the Joint Commissioner's order. The Tribunal noted that as per Section 35F of the Act, appellants are required to deposit dues for appeal consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the appropriation of the deposited amount. The possibility of refund hinged on the outcome of the appeal against the Joint Commissioner's order. As there was no valid reason at that stage to order a refund, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, thereby upholding the appropriation of the deposited amount.This judgment highlights the importance of complying with statutory provisions regarding deposits for appeals and the subsequent appropriation of such deposits by the authorities. It underscores that the refund of appropriated amounts is contingent upon the appeal's outcome, emphasizing the procedural requirements and legal framework governing such financial transactions in the context of duty demands and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944.