TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was an adjudication against the respondent by order-in-original No. 02/2012-13 dated 23-7-2012 raising excise duty demand of Rs. 49,16,667/- with equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 17 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and interest under Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 (Ref. page 52 of the appeal folder) imposed. After that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) challenging the appropriation. Such appeal of the respondent was disposed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 14-11-2012 holding that ld. Adjudicating authority should not have appropriated refunded amount to the extent of Rs. 1,08,17,745/-. Accordingly the respondent succeeded before ld. Commissioner (Appeal). 3. Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal submitting that the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round that appeal period had not expired before aforesaid appropriation an order was passed for which adjustment of refund made by order dated 25-7-2012 was unwarranted. It was submitted that Respondent has come in appeal before the Tribunal against adjudicated demand made by order dated 23-7-2012 in Appeal No. 3055/2012 and that appeal is pending before Tribunal. Therefore, ld. Commissioner (Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tration has been surrendered by it. When Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 is read, we find that mandate of law nowhere debars Revenue from adjusting refund against dues recoverable by Central Government under any of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 or the rules made thereunder. Therefore there was no arbitrary process of law followed by Adjudicating Authority. Ld. Commissioner (Ap....