TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (5) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The director of the appellant-company namely Shri Govindnarayan Kedarnath Kakada was arrested in connection with an offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act and produced by the department of Central Excise before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and got remanded to judicial custody. He moved bail application (Criminal Application No. 1069/1999) before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, and the same has been considered by an order dated 12th April, 1999 subject to his depositing Rs. 50 lakhs in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and on furnishing solvency of Rs. 3,000/- with one surety for like sum. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was also directed to deposit said sum of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed an order for retention of the said sum of Rs. 50 Lakhs as deposit with the Commissioner, Central Excise on behalf of the Commission, till the Commission issues terms of Settlement on the application filed by the appellant, as per Section 32G of Central Excise Act, 1944. It has also observed that the retention of this amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs is for purpose of protecting interest of Revenue. 5. Further, it is relevant to note that the appellants had earlier filed an application in terms of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Settlement Commission and also deposited Rs. 4,46,284/- towards admitted duty liability as per the orders made in this regard. Subsequently, no proceedings went on for the alleged non co-op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whole amount is refundable once the proceedings were terminated by the Settlement Commission. He has also placed reliance on the Circular No. 275/37/2K-CX.8A, dated 2-1-2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi and the decision rendered in a case between Nelco Limited v. Union of India by Bombay High Court reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 56 (Bom.). The Circular referred above relates to the refund of pre-deposit-made during the pendency of the appeal and insist upon that there need not be a formal application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and that the simple letter from the person who deposited the amount and on-showing the evidence of pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 32G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 "during pendency of any proceedings before it," there can be an order of provisional attachment of any property belonging to the appellant, such attachment was not effected on this amount. It is significant to note that the Settlement Commission before making order of retention has observed that the appellant has given the details of the property on 10-5-2001. From the above observation it is implied that an attachment of the property can be effected in future if necessity arise. Therefore the Commission simply ordered retention of amount of Rs. 50 lakhs as deposit only without attachment. While sending the case back to the Central Excise officer as per Section 32L, the Settlement Commission did n....