TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (12) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as non-excisable. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Berhampore Division rejected this contention of the party. They filed a classification list and paid duty on the waste and scrap of wires and cables under protest from 1989 to 1994. They also filed an appeal against the above direction of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order dated 29-2-92 remanded the matter for de novo adjudication to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Berhampore. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Berhampore vide his order dated 25-4-94 held that the said waste and scrap was non-excisable. Consequent to this order, they filed a refund claim of Rs. 60,25,201/- on 21-7-94. They were however is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner on 5-12-1996 and 6-1-1997 that as per the telephonic advise given to them they had already adjusted the claimed amount in their Accounts. They wrote another letter dated 13-1-1997 to the Assistant Commissioner in which they reiterated that according to the telephonic advise given to them they had already adjusted the claimed amount. However, the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 24-1-1997 rejected the refund claim of the party. 4. Even before their refund claim was formally rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kalyani Division, Range II visited their office and as per the version of the party forcefully and coercively reversed the credit entries in the party's accounts in his own ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted against the liability under Section 11AB. They were also called to show-cause why the penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 11AC read with Rule 57-I. 7. The party replied to the show-cause notice vehemently contesting the allegations levelled against them and gave details of the history of the case. They contended that the credit was taken by them only on positive advise of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Behrampore in favour of taking credit of the above said amount in their account. It is stated that they also informed of their action vide their letter dated 13-1-1997 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner. In their reply, they also contested the allegation of the collusion of the departmental officers w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uo moto in the books of account during the period 1-12-1996 to 29-11-1997. This amount of Rs. 60,25,201/- was subsequently debited by the Superintendent of Central Excise jointly with Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Senior Manager of the party. Both of them had signed below the debit entries and affixed their seals. The interest of Rs. 10,84,536/- on the said amount was also similarly debited on 29-11-1997. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Cal. III issued a show cause notice dated 25-1-1999 asking the assessee why the said amount should not be formally disallowed as also the amount of the interest. The Commissioner has also observed that there is no provision of law which provides that an assessee can himself decide on the correctness of refund cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e before us and the facts on record, it is observed that the claim for refund of Rs. 60,25,201/- filed by the party is still pending consideration with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Behrampore on remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order 25-11-1998. In the meantime, it appears that the party had taken credit of this amount in their current and Modvat accounts, suo motu on 5-11-1996 and 1-12-1996 which subsequently was got debited along with interest of Rs. 10,84,536/- by the departmental authorities on 26-11-1997. It is for the regularisation of this amount that the Commissioner issued a show cause dated 25-5-1999 allegaing collusion between the appellants and the concerned departmental officers. This show-cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellants that this amount was got forcefully reversed by the Superintendent of Central Excise. In his order, the Commissioner has observed that the debited entries in the accounts in this regard are duly countersigned by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Senior Manager of the party. This proves that the contention of the appellants of coercion and use of force is not supported by the facts. On overall appreciation of the facts on record, therefore, it is observed that the act of the party in suo motu taking of the credit amounts though is not in conformity with the provisions of law but it is also observed that the departmental authorities were fully in knowledge of the same. It is further observed that they h....