2005 (2) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C of the Central Excise Act. The appellants had claimed refund in respect of pre-deposits made as per Stay Order and had relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 371 (S.C.). The appellants had also submitted that the amounts had been pre-deposited in terms of finalisation of provisional assessments and in any case, the duty deposited in terms of finalisation of provisional assessments would not attract the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act. It was also submitted that there was no duty computed as it was cum duty and, therefore, Section 11D of the Act is not attracted in the matter. 2. The learned Counsel filed a detailed submission and relied on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Industries India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - Final Order No. 907/2004, dated 11-5-2004, [2004 (176) E.L.T. 647 (Tri.)]. 4. It was also submitted that the department did not file any appeal against the order of finalisation of assessments and, therefore the refund was required to be made to them by implementing the orders of finalisation and in this regard, he relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). It was submitted that the issue of Show Cause Notice by the department proposing to recover the refund without challenging the assessment is also illegal and in this regard, he relied on the following judgments. (a)     CC, Mumbai ....