2020 (4) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate For the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that investigations were initiated against the appellant in 2008 alleging clandestine removal of finished products. During the investigation, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs towards the alleged duty evasion. Show cause notice was issued thereafter on 13.02.2009....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fund claim of the amount of Rs. 9 lakhs stating that it is a pre-deposit and ought to be refunded to the appellant. The refund application was rejected by the adjudicating authority which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld.Counsel Shri P. Kulasekaran appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the amount of Rs. 9 lakhs was tender....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itigation on the issue. Therefore, there is no bar of limitation. Further, the time period stipulated in Section 11B cannot be pressed into application in the case of refund of pre-deposit. It is stressed by the ld. counsel that the amount paid is only a deposit and is not a duty. He relied upon the decision in CCE Chennai-II Vs UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. - 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad.). In the said decisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paid during investigation proceedings. It is needless to say that such amount does not have acquire character of duty unless the amount is confirmed as duty and has attained finality. In the present case, the issue has been held in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dt.30.11.2012. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the department has also been withdrawn on litigation polic....