TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivatives. The appellant was availing area based exemption in terms of Notification No.56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 as the appellant is located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. During the period from 16.6.1997 to 03.9.1997, the appellant had availed cenvat credit of CVD of Rs. 36,57,968/- on seven bills of entries. On 25.2.2005, jurisdictional range officers informed the appellant that they have wrongly taken credit and asked to pay/ reverse the said amount. Accordingly, the appellant debited an amount of Rs. 18,28,984/- on various dates under protest with the remarks "we reserve our right to contest the same if required". An amount of Rs. 18,28,984/- was further adjusted by refund sanctioning authority from the refund claimed by the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly and in a bonafide manner", shows that what was deposited is an amount and not tax. Till today, whatever amounts are deposited in the absence of show cause notice are deposits only and it has not taken the colour of duty. 5. It is further clarified that the amounts were debited beyond statutory period of 5 years before any show cause notice was issued, hence, the interest liability would not get attracted. He further submits that in case of payments effected were on issue of ineligible credit, recovery of ineligible credit cannot be considered to be duty especially when this credit was taken on eligible import duties paid on bills of entries and not Central Excise duties. Therefore, he prayed that the refund claim to be sanctioned. 6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed to be deducted by the department. The refund cannot be claimed now and the orders which have been attained finality cannot be revived at this stage after 14 years. 9. He also submits that the claim of the appellant that they had not received the orders have no ground as they themselves admitted the fact of deductions made by the department and received cheques of balance amount from the refund claim. In view of this, he prayed that the refund claim required to be rejected. 10. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 11. On hearing both sides, I find that vide letter dated 25.2.2005, the appellant has intimated that they have availed credit of Rs. 36,57,968/- during the period from 16.6.1997 to 03.9.1997 on seven bills of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to pay interest. In this context, they wrote that they have deposited the amount voluntarily and in a bonafide manner which does not vacate the protest raised by the appellant through letter dated 26.2.2005 and 31.3.2005 and 30.9.2005. 14. Moreover, on going through the facts of the case, it is admitted position that the credit was availed by the appellant during the period from 16.6.1997 to 03.9.1997 and through letter dated 25.2.2005 (which is almost after passing of more than seven and half years), the appellant was asked to reverse the Cenvat credit availed during the period 16.6.1997 to 03.09.1997. Reversal was made initially by the appellant under protest through a letter. Remaining amount has been adjusted from the refund claim bu....