2017 (12) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f various goods including Spray Dried Vegetables and Food Powder (hereinafter to be referred to as "the said product"). On the premise that the manufacture and clearance of the said product invites nil rate of duty, the petitioners were clearing such product without payment of any duty of excise. The investigation team of the department conducted an inquiry at the premises of the petitioners on 18.9.2015. Under inquiry were the clearances made by the petitioners of the said goods during the period of April 2014 to September 2015. The departmental authorities held a prima facie belief that the said goods invited excise duty at the rate of 6% ad-valorem. During the course of visit of the officers, the petitioners under a panchnama dated 18.9.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hope that information / explanation provided to your goodself is sufficient to conclude the matter. In case of any further information required, kindly revert back. We, humbly request your good self to conclude the matter and release the documents as per panchnama at the earliest. Kindly do the needful and oblige." 6. The department instead of closing the chapter as requested in the said letter dated 6.4.2016 conveyed to the petitioners under letter dated 10.5.2016 that a further sum of Rs. 3,00,987/- is payable. Only after such amount is paid, the issue can be closed. 7. On 29.3.2012, the petitioners wrote to the department and for the first time took up the question of the excise duty payable on the said product. In a detail comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Accordingly, payments were made voluntarily. It was for the first time on 29.3.2017 the petitioners took the stand that the duty was deposited under mistake. On account of stand taken by the petitioners, the department had discontinued the investigation which restarted only after the petitioners wrote the said letter dated 29.3.2017. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we have no quarrel with the petitioners' legal proposition that the department cannot hold on any amount from the assessee, which the department has no authority in law to retain. If the petitioners had disputed the duty liability at the very outset and promptly taken up the issue with the authorities immediate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was on 29.3.2017 that the petitioners for the first time since 18.9.2015 took up the question of duty payable on the product in question. Under this letter, the petitioners disputed the duty liability and also asserted that the letter dated 6.4.2016 was written under coercion. 11. The entire issue has to be therefore seen in the background of these peculiar facts. The petitioners having deposited the amount voluntarily and irrespective of what the petitioners now contend, we see no force or coercion. The petitioners did not take up the issue of the duty not being payable for nearly one and a half years. In the meantime, by their conduct and offer, the petitioners stopped the department from carrying out further investigations. We are not ....