TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst it. The notice dated 21.11.2000 against M/s Interscape was adjudicated and the duty was confirmed against M/s Interscape. In the same order, the furniture found in the premises of M/s SHPL was confiscated and was redeemed after adjusting Rs. 11 lakhs already paid by them. Subsequently, on 29.1.2001, the notice dated 15.4.1998 raised against M/s SHPL was dropped. M/s SHPL filed an appeal challenging the said order before the Tribunal along with other noticees including M/s Interscape. The Tribunal vide its order dated 19.7.2005 set aside the Order-in-Original No. 13/M-I/2001 dated 23.1.2001. Consequently, M/s SHPL filed a refund claim for Rs. 11 lakhs duty paid by them during investigation, which was appropriated against redemption fine by Order-in-Original dated 23.1.2001. The Assistant Commissioner on 22.6.2010 returned the refund claim filed by M/s SHPL on the grounds that it was premature. On 12.7.2010, M/s SHPL filed a refund claim again which was rejected by Assistant Commissioner on 20.8.2010. M/s SHPL filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed their appeal and ordered refund of pre-deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs. However, he did not order anything in respect o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.11.2011 rejecting the claim of interest on refund. Thus there are two appeals against the two orders of Commissioner (Appeals), one against the order dated 20.12.10 allowing the refund claim but with no directions on grant of interest and the other against the order dated 30.11.2011 rejecting the interest claimed on the refund sanctioned. Both are being heard together alongwith the appeal of revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.12.10 directing sanction of refund. 3. Learned Counsel for M/s SHPL prepared a chart of above event and explained the same. He argued that Rs. 11 lakhs were paid in 1997/98 in respect of investigation conducted by the Central Excise officers and consequently a show-cause notice was issued on 15.4.1998 and the same was dropped on 21.1.2001. He argued that they became entitle to refund of the same amount paid in 1997-98 immediately after the investigations were closed on 29.1.2001. He argued that the Revenue has wrongly adjusted the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs against the redemption fine. He argued that redemption fine is a matter of option and only if it is exercised, the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the theory of mistake of law and the consequent period of limitation of three years from the date of discovery of such mistake of law cannot be invoked by an assessee taking advantage of the decision in another assessee's case. All claims for refund ought to be, and ought to have been, filed only under and in accordance with Rule 11/Section 11B and under no other provision and in no other forum." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that "it is not open to any person to make a refund claim on the basis of a decision of a Court or Tribunal rendered in the case of another person. He cannot also claim that the decision of the Court/Tribunal in another person's case has led him to discover the mistake of law under which he has paid the tax nor can he claim that he is entitled to prefer a writ petition or to institute a suit within three years of such alleged discovery of mistake of law." (ii) He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad Vs. V.N. Dyes & Processors P. Ltd. - 2004 (167) ELT 183 (Tri-Del) wherein the Tribunal has held as under: - "4. I have gone through the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs. 2,04,95,235/- at the premises of Hotel Marine Plaza belonging to SHPL. The order further goes on to give an option to M/s SHPL for redemption of such goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 11 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. The order also appropriated Rs. 11 lakhs paid by them. It is seen that in respect of same set of investigation and statements recorded, two show-cause notices were issued at the gap of two and half years. The second show-cause notice issued on 21.11.2000 was confirmed o 23.01.2001 and first show-cause notice issued on 15.4.1998 was dropped on 29.1.2001. It would appear that there was some confusion and, therefore, Revenue was unable to come to a conclusion as to who was manufacturer and therefore in the same investigation, two show-cause notices were issued. The assertion of the Counsel that the deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs was made in respect of first show-cause notice is without basis as it is seen that both the show-cause notices were based on same set of investigation, statements and facts. Thus, the assertion of learned Counsel that on conclusion of first show-cause notice, the amount deposited by them in 1997-98....