TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 526
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 15 lakhs is moved. 2. While hearing the argument on application for stay, we are of the view that a very short point is involved in this matter, therefore, we have decided to hear the argument on appeal with the consent of both sides. 3. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that M/s. Jain & Company, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi are engaged in the manufacture of cold drawn steel wires falling under Chapter Heading No. 7217 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The officers of the Anti Evasion Branch of Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-I visited the factory premises of the respondent and seized certain documents for verification. While verification of documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the property of the assessee in order to protect the interest of Revenue. This deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs was made by the respondent only with a view to escape attachment order. 5. Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the order of the Tribunal in Florida Electrical Ind. Ltd. (supra) as also the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.) is clear to the effect that the Department has no right to retain the amount deposited by the assessee unless the demand has been adjudicated against him. He further submits that Section 11DDA is not applicable in this case for the reason that there is no attachment order. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal as well as stay applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt reported as 2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 by dismissing the Revenue's appeal filed. In the instant case, even after a lapse of 20 months, neither any show cause notice demanding central excise duty has been passed against the appellants. Therefore, the ratio of the above mentioned judgments is squarely applicable to the case in hand. I further find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Century Dying and Printing Mills v. UOI - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 400 (Guj.) while dealing with Identical issue, has also held as under :- 12. In absence of any statutory provision of the basis of which any such recovery can be made, the action of the respondent authorities in collecting the cheques from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. The po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of refunding the amount, will not entitle the petitioner to contend that it is absolved on merits, in case at the end of inquiry and adjudication process, it is found that the petitioner becomes liable to pay duty in accordance with law. It Is further made clear that the respondent authorities are entitled to proceed with the inquiries which are already in progress and If necessary and deemed fit, issue show cause notice to the petitioner in accordance with law; thereafter pass an order of adjudication in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. 14. In the result, the action of the respondent authorities in collecting various cheques for various amounts is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. The respondent a....