TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1096
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sted the same towards the confirmed demands. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Assistant Commissioner wrongly adjusted this sanctioned refund amount from confirmed demands and also directed for payment of interest for the period starting from 19 March, 2017 (expiry of three months from the date of the order dated 20 December, 2016 passed by the Tribunal) till the date of payment of refund amount. 2. It transpires from the records that a show cause notice dated 9 April, 1998 was issued to Rajasthan Explosives alleging that it had not paid Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 51,51,960/- on the goods cleared during the period 1995-1996 to 1997-1998. The payment was confirmed and in the Appeal filed before the Tribunal by Rajasthan Explosives an amount of Rs. 1,23,72,567/- was directed to be deposited as a condition for filing of the Appeal. The Appeal was ultimately allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 20 December, 2016. Consequently, Rajasthan Explosives filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,23,72,567/- before the Assistant Commissioner who by order dated 11 April, 2018 held that the refund claim was admissible but directed that it shall be adjusted against the confirmed demands.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd would not raise any additional claim against the new promoter, other than those envisaged in the SS, failing which, the Bench would be compelled to consider appropriate action(s) for violation of the directions of the Bench, as may be deemed fit, according to law. The Central Excise Department would also not initiate any punitive action against the new promoter in violation of the provisions of section 22(1) of the Act, without specific prior approval of the Board." 5. BIFR discharged the company from the purview of the Act by order dated 01 August, 2005. It was observed: "4(v). The new/incoming promoter would not be liable to payment against any claim/liability, which was not disclosed in the books by the old management or not provided in the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR for transfer of the company to the new/incoming promoter as spelt out in Para 6D(xiii) & 6E(xviii),page 9 of SS-2000". "10 (ii). The unimplemented provisions, if any, including the provisions as stated in Para 4(v) above', of the MS-2000 would be implemented by all concerned agencies, and would continue to be monitored by the company." 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the factual position ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in violation of the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Act, without specific prior approval of the Board. v. In the reply submitted by the central excise department before the BIFR in MA No. 444/2013 in compliance of order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the BIFR categorically mentioned that Central Excise department has given the benefit of the sanctioned scheme to the appellant-company in four cases involving revenue of Rs. 462.62 Lakhs. vi. Sh. Kamlakar Sharma, ASG of India, vide letter dt.15.01.2017 opined that the order passed by the BIFR is a judicial order and in case the Department is feeling aggrieved with the same then the appropriate remedy is to file an appeal before the AAIFR against the order passed by the BIFR and also that until the order passed by the BIFR is modified/set aside by any appellate authority, the same is required to be complied with in the strict sense notwithstanding the fact that the Act in the view of the Department provides other way round. vii. The Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur vide order 17.05.2017 in the appeal filed by the department has held that the BIFR vide order dated 22.11.2000 granted immunity to the appellant from recovery of arrear pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2018 of the Commissioner (Appeal) that this Appeal has been filed before the Tribunal by the Department. 8. Learned Authorized Representative of the Department has submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error in ordering that the confirmed demand shall not be adjusted. It is his submission that the Assistant Commissioner correctly directed for adjustment of the amount in terms of section 11(1) of the Excise Act. 9. It is not possible to accept this submission of the learned Authorized Representative of the Department. As noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the dues pertaining to the orders dated 18 October 2001 and 23 February 2001 confirming the demands, were not disclosed by the Department or the earlier management to the BIFR and the same were not considered in the scheme sanctioned by BIFR. The BIFR had also by order dated 22 May, 2002 protected the management from recovery of dues which were not disclosed by the old management or not provided for in the package approved by the BIFR. It is not the case of the Department that the dues pertaining to the aforesaid two orders confirming the demands had been disclosed by the Department or the earlier management....