TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a claim for refund of Rs. 1,80,36,185/- with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on 02.09.2005 claiming that they had debited Rs. 8,36,185/- through PLA entry on 26.11.1993 and had paid Rs. 1.5 crore through TR-6 Challan dated 28.06.1994 on account of Excise duty and they had deposited Rs. 22 lakh through TR-6 Challant dated 13.03.1997 as pre-deposit against the amount of possible duty demand in sales tax issue which was later on confirmed by this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 02.08.2005. The appellant were issued with a show-cause-notice dated 21.12.2005 wherein Revenue contended that the appellant had not followed the procedural requirement provided in Rule 233-B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore, Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel has submitted that there were two show-cause-notices issued to the appellant for the period from 01.03.1992 to November, 1993 with allegation of under valuation due to non-inclusion of certain expenses such as advertisements and differential Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,66,26,717/- was proposed to be demanded. In the other show-cause-notice a demand of Rs. 26,48,860.86 was raised for the period from April, 1989 to September, 1992 on account of non-inclusion of sales tax in assessable value. The said matter was decided through Order-in-Original dated 19.08.1996 wherein both the demands were confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 2 crore was imposed on the appellant. In the meantime, on 26.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri.-Mumbai) and contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the amount which was deposited during the earlier proceedings cannot be retained by Revenue and if the same is retained then such retention is without the authority of law that the same will amount violation of Article 365 of Constitution of India. He has further contended that this Tribunal in the said case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. has held that the amount deposited by appellant during course of investigation is to be treated as deposit and if the same is not found to be payable by the depositor then such amount is not hit by limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant also prayed for allowing interest on the delayed refund. He further contended that ....