2014 (2) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the amount deposited by the assessee during the pendency of the investigation cannot be said to have been paid by them voluntarily towards the duty for relevant period in the show cause notice, when the said show cause notice has been held to be time-barred, especially when there was no challenge to the order on merits of the claim and in absence of coercion for deposit of the legitimate amount of duty?" 2. We heard learned advocate Mr. D.M. Parikh for the appellant-Department. 3. The facts involved in the appeal were that the respondent assessee was 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in the manufacture of cotton denim fabrics, which was an excisable item under the Cus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he aforesaid show cause notice, the Joint Commissioner issued a corrigendum dated 17-6-2005 wherein the portion of show cause notice regarding short levy was substituted and it was stated that instead of Rs. 14,48,878/-, amount of Rs. 43,74,475/- was payable. As the revised amount was falling within the jurisdiction of Commissioner, a further corrigendum dated 6-7-2005 was issued. 3.3 The respondent-noticee had already paid the total amount of Rs. 10,34,098/- and the details of said payments were conveyed. The assessee had paid Rs. 5,03,673/- as mentioned above by challan dated 14-11-2002, further Rs. 2,76,194/- on 20-12-2002 and again Rs. 2,54,231/- on 3-3-2003 totaling to Rs. 10,34,098/-. 3.4 The above-mentioned show cause not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e notice issued on 10th September, 2004 as well as corrigendum dated 7th June, 2005 and 28th July, 2005 were without any authority of law and are held to be not justified." "Thus, the total sum of Rs. 10,34,098/- was honoured by the physical payment by the party on its own volition i.e. without challenge and protest, which was leviable and payable according to them. In fact, the quantification of the demand was carried out by the Superintendent and conveyed to the party where the price of the goods cleared was taken as cum-duty price. But the period involved was from 1-3-2000 to 31-3-2000. However, such payment was really short as the demand was worked out for Rs. 14,48,878/- for period 16-9-1999 to 31-8-2002. I further find that, on merit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944." 5. After considering the facts and the findings of the adjudicating authority, the Tribunal arrived at its own conclusion as under. "It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the lower adjudicating authority that he has clearly held that show cause notice dated 10-9-2004 as well as corrigendum dated 17-6-2005 and 28-7-2005 were without any authority of law and inappropriate and illegal. It is also his finding that the demands and other proposed causes of action are barred by limitation as provided under provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is to be seen that the Revenue authorities have not filed any appeal against the said Order-in-Original nor they ha....