2010 (3) TMI 464

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are engaged in the manufacture of yarn and an of fence case was registered against them for clandestine manufacture and removal of yarn without payment of duty. After receipt of show cause notice, appellants moved an application before the Settlement Commission for settlement and as per the admission order, they paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Subsequently, both the appellants decided not to get the matter settled and instead opted up date for adjudication by the appropriate authority of the department. Accordingly, the Settlement Commission sent back both the cases to the Original Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12-12-2005. Subsequently, the demands against both the appellants were dropped vide Commissioner's order dated 10-2-20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onths from the date of the order of the Commissioner deciding the issue finally in favour of the appellants. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of both the appellants. However, identical written submissions have been made by both the appellants. In the written submissions appellants have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Nelco Limited [2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.)]. which has attained finality after affirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. A104 (S.C.). It was also submitted that the refund claim has been rejected on the ground that the amount deposited before Settlement Commission. was not a deposit but was duty and therefore question of interest does not arise. It was ....