2009 (2) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....est to the appellants on the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- deposited by them on 27-1-1997. The learned Advocate stated that the above amount was deposited on the direction of the Revenue in the course of some investigation conducted. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants. However, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order dated 31-3-2000 dropping the proceedings against the appellants. The appellants claimed the refund of the advance deposit made on 27-1-1997 by filing a refund claim on 7-8-2000. But, the claim was rejected on 25-4-2001 by the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad-II Division on the ground that the statement given in the course of investigation on 25-1-1997 was not related to the OIO dated 31-3-2000. Later, the appellant t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vestigation as insisted by departmental authorities cannot be considered to be any payments towards any duties of excise payable under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Further, at that point of time, there was neither any provisional assessment nor any order directing payment of any duty and factually the deposit was made under coercion. Therefore, the interest provisions under Section 11BB are not applicable. Since the amount deposited and paid was illegally collected, the appellants are entitled to refund from the date of deposit to date of actual payment and it should not be restricted to date of filing refund application. In this regard, the appellants respectfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Binjra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....interest cannot be restricted to the date of filing of refund application and actually interest provisions under Section 11BB are not applicable. 4. The learned DR reiterated the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The fact that the appellants deposited an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 21-1-1997 is not disputed. This amount has been deposited during the course of some investigation by the Department. However, the proceedings against the appellant had been dropped by the Additional Commissioner's order dated 31-3-2000. These facts are not under challenge. In that case, the Revenue could not have kept the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Consequent to the adjudication order dropping the proceedings, the sai....