TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Revenue's applications for non-payment of deposits in Ripple Fragrances case</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous applications seeking the dismissal of appeals by M/s. Ripple Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., Unit II, due to ... Mandatory deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - When the assesse is one and the same, and their finances are also common, this difference of Unit-I and Unit-II should not come in way in treating the appellants deposits of ₹ 30 lakhs made way back on 20.7.2013 as the deposit for the present appeals, when it is on record that the assesse made this deposit on 20.7.2013 for which they had informed the jurisdictional Commissioner on 22.7.2013 stating that this deposit of ₹ 30 lakhs was towards the liability of Unit-II factory and for which there is an acknowledgment to prove that such a letter was given to the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysuru. The said deposit of ₹ 30 lakhs be considered as pre-deposit against the mandatory deposit as required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - application dismissed. Issues Involved:- Dismissal of appeals due to non-payment of mandatory deposits- Acceptance of a deposit made for one unit as a deposit for another unit- Estoppel and unjust enrichment in revenue retentionAnalysis:Issue 1: Dismissal of appeals due to non-payment of mandatory depositsThe Revenue filed miscellaneous applications seeking the dismissal of appeals filed by M/s. Ripple Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., Unit II, citing non-payment of mandatory deposits. The Revenue argued that despite the appellant's claim of having paid &8377; 30 lakhs on 20.7.2013, no such deposits were made for the appeals in question. The main contention was that the appellant did not make the mandatory deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the appeal filed by Unit-II.Issue 2: Acceptance of a deposit made for one unit as a deposit for another unitM/s. Ripple Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. contended that both Unit-I and Unit-II are owned by the same private limited company and share common finances. The appellant argued that the deposit of &8377; 30 lakhs made for Unit-II should be considered as a deposit for the present appeals, as it was informed to the jurisdictional Commissioner that the deposit was towards the liability of Unit-II factory. The Tribunal agreed that since the assessee is the same for all units and their finances are common, the distinction between Unit-I and Unit-II should not hinder considering the deposit as valid for the present appeals.Issue 3: Estoppel and unjust enrichment in revenue retentionThe appellant argued that the Revenue had accepted the payment of &8377; 30 lakhs for four years without appropriation in the adjudication order. The appellant claimed that the Revenue should not be allowed to retain the money without explanation, as it would lead to unjust enrichment of the Revenue, which is impermissible in law. The Tribunal, after considering all facts and circumstances, ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the deposit of &8377; 30 lakhs should be considered as a pre-deposit against the mandatory deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the present appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue, as it found the deposit made by M/s. Ripple Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. for Unit-II to be valid for the present appeals, emphasizing the common ownership and finances of the appellant's units as the basis for its decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
