TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s SEL Manufacturing Company Ltd. (previously known as M/s Saluja Exim Limited)/ M/s. SEL Exports (Previously known as M/s Saluja Exim). The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi vide the impugned order has allowed the appeal of the respondents with consequential relief. We are disposing of both the stay application and the appeal of the Revenue by this common order. The facts leading to the present appeal are discussed in following paragraphs. 2. The respondents had deposited and amount of Rs. 3,48,24,503/- during the investigation made by DRI in the year 2003.Out of the said amount of Rs. 3,48,24,503/-, an amount of Rs. 2,23,87,195/- was deposited in cash/cheque/DD whereas a further amount of Rs. 1,24,37,308/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istant Commissioner, (Refund) categorically mentioned in his order dated 29.04.2016 that the duty amount of Rs. 59,23,397/- can be adjusted out of DEPB/Rebate amount of Rs. 1,24,37,308/- The said order of the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) has been accepted by the Revenue as no further appeal was filed by the department in this regard. 5. Therefore, the respondents filed a second refund claim of Rs. 65,13,911/- (Rs.1,24,37,308/-) amount of duty confirmed Rs. 59,23,397/-). The contention of the respondents was that this amount has been considered as amount deposited during the investigation in the Show Cause Notice at various places and also been considered amount by the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) for appropriating the liability of Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estigation; that the show cause notice dated 11.11.2004 issued by the DRI has considered the said benefits as amount deposited/surrendered by the respondents; that Show Cause dated 11-11-2004 vide paragraph no. 29 (b) categorically proposes to appropriate the amount of Rs. 3,48,24,503/- (which includes the DEPB amount of Rs. 1,24,37,308/-) against proposed duty liability; that the Assistant Commissioner, (Refund) has also categorically considered the said benefit of DEPB/Rebate as an amount deposited during the investigation and has appropriated the duty amount of Rs. 59,23,397/-out of the total amount deposited/surrendered; that the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, (Refund) has also categorically considered the said benefit of DEP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts deposited during investigation are sanctioned regularly by the department on equitable principles, despite the fact that there is no clear provision to cater to these type of situations; that various High Courts and Tribunals have conferred the benefits to the assessee where the amount was paid by using the DEPB scrips. 13. Sh. S.C. Jain relied upon the following cases to support his view. 14. Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd. Vs Union of India, 2016 (339) ELT 509 (Guj.). 15. Allen Diesels India (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India, 2016 (334) ELT 624 (Del.). 16. In all the said cases, the duty was paid by using the DEPB and later on the assesse claimed the duty drawback or refund in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus Which was disallowed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the department in the Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2004. It is also undisputed that the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) vide his Order dated 29.04.2016 has appropriated the duty amount of Rs. 59,23,397/- out of the said amount of Rs. 1,24,37,308/-. Thus we have no hesitation in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,24,37,308/- surrendered by the respondents by way of DEPB/Rebate claim has been considered as an amount deposited during investigation by the department itself and there is no dispute over this fact. 20. Further, we also agree with the observations made in the impugned order dated 11.7.2018 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that refund claim cannot be denied merely on the ground that there is no provision under law. Once it....