2013 (12) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew of CESTAT'S final order No. A/447-449/WZB/AHD/2011 dt. 24/02/2011. Under the above mentioned CESTAT order dt. 24/02/2011 the following observations were made:-    "There is no evidence in the impugned order referring to any mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment duty. In view of the above, we find favour with the appellant's contention that demand raised beyond the limitation is barred. However, inasmuch as a part of the demand is within the limitation period, the same is required to be confirmed. The Lower authorities would quantify the same along with interest to be paid." It has been held by Commissioner (A) in his order dt. 22/02/2013 that Assistant Collector ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the appellant in the course of an investigation which culminated in the OIA No. 47/Commissioner/2009 dt. 30.11.2009. This OIO was set aside by CESTAT'S order dt. 24/02/2011 as time barred and the demand to the extent covered within the limitation period was ordered by CESTAT to be quantified by the Lower authorities. Once an OIO is set aside the proceedings reach the stage of show cause notice. As per the direction of this bench the demand within the period of limitation was required to be quantified and paid by the appellants along with interest. There is no evidence on record that such an exercise has been done by the Adjudication authority till the date of hearing fixed in this appeal. Appellant has relied upon a series of judgments th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ores were presented to the bank and same have bounced. He contends that the prayer of the petitioner thus may not be granted. However, he has not disputed that as of date there is no amount outstanding against the petitioner." In that set of facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana ordered for refund of the amount deposited during the course of investigation.    Para-8- In this case also, it is not disputed that the appellant has paid the amount during the course of investigation but there is no adjudication order and no confirmation of demand as on today against the appellant. In these circumstances, as we are bound by the decisions relied on by the appellant cited herein above, we set aside the impugned order and all....