TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firm, has been incorporated as M/s Universal Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in manufacture and export of organic compounds viz. Softening Agents and registered with the Central Excise department. That in pursuance of search and seizure proceedings in its premises on 17.10.1996, during the investigation related to the period April, 1994 to 14.10.1996, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs (Rs. 3 lakhs on 24.10.1996 + Rs. 3 lakhs on 4.11.1996) on the direction of the investigating authority. The allegation on the appellant was undervaluation of its finished goods and semi-finished goods were found as not recorded in the RG-1 register. It being a preventive case involving seizure and confiscation of goods, protective demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. It appears from the refund order that the Dy. Commissioner had called for a report from the Superintendent and after detailed verification, the Range Superintendent opined that the said refund is admissible and the same can be given in cash. It is further recorded in the order that the final order of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Revenue. The Dy. Commissioner further recorded that after going through the refund application and examining the various documents and report of the Range Superintendent, he observed that the issue is settled and the demand raised earlier against the appellant cannot be enforced as the matter is finally decided in its favour. The Dy. Commissioner also examined the Chartered Accountant's certificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter of pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal. 5.2 As regards reliance on C.A.'s Certificate, it was contended that the adjudicating authority was justified in relying on the C.A's certificate along with detailed report of the Range Superintendent and it cannot be stated that the refund has been allowed merely relying on the C.A.'s certificate. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 29.11.2012 has set aside the order dated 2.4.2012 (Refund) on the following observations:- (i) When the case of unaccounted of goods (redemption fine and penalty) was not decided, it cannot be said that the case had attained finality for refunding the entire amount paid during investigation and as pre-depos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty but only a pre-deposit for availing the right of appeal. Such amount is bound to be refunded in favour of the party of the appellant. Following the said ruling, the said view was again reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Nelco Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2002 (144) ELT 56 (Bom). 6.1 As regards the amount deposited during investigation and subsequent to clearances of the goods, the appellant relies on the ruling of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Plas Pack Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 2004 (167) ELT 422 (Tri-Mum), wherein this Tribunal relying on the earlier ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Gwalior Oil Mills - 2002 (52) RLT 648 (CEGAT) and Punjab Beverag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r (Appeals) is justified in holding that proper enquiry have not been made by the Dy. Commissioner in the order granting refund. The learned DR also points out that in spite of direction of the Tribunal, the appellant have not filed the copy of its balance-sheet and ledger account for the said period as to the treatment of the mount of Rs. 6 lakhs was paid. 8. Having considered the rival contention, I find that the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal (supra) is not applicable in the facts of this case, the facts being totally different and there is no finding in this case that the appellant have collected the disputed amount from anybody. Secondly, I find that so far the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs d....