TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestigation. Subsequently, an order in original dated 23.05.2012 was passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Ghaziabad creating demand of duty of an amount of Rs. 2,45,41,600/-. The respondent challenged the said order in original in Appeal before CESTAT. The CESTAT allowed the appeal by order dated 16.05.2017 with consequential benefit and set aside order in original dated 23.05.2012. The appeal which was filed being Central Excise Appeal No. 12 of 2018 (Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Vs. M/s East India Udyog Ltd) before this Court, was admitted on 31.01.2018 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the manufacturing of most of components of the transformers at Sahibabad in Ghaziabad, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y order dated 26.04.2019 observing as under:- "I have carefully gone through the facts and records of the case as well as the submissions made by the appellant department. I find that the present appeal has been filed only on the ground that the adjudicating has sanctioned the refund claim on the basis of CA certificate and not examined any other documentary evidence, establishing that part of duty was not added in cost price of the impugned goods i.e. the adjudicating authority had not examined that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to any other person. In this regards, I find that the demand of duty was confirmed against the respondent on the ground that he had not paid central excise duty on the transformers alleged to be cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt already deposited by assessee - HELD : Money deposited by assessee did not belong to revenue, who were at best, its custodian. This understanding was clear to revenue, as indicated in their show cause notice for appropriation - Till that money was appropriated, it was in nature of deposit/pre-deposit. It was involuntary deposit by assessee since no one would deposit huge money without creation of liability in law - In such cases principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable. 5.1 I further find that the appellant has come up with the present appeal only on the basis of some perceived but unsubstantiated deficiencies in the impugned order but has not made any submissions in support of the grounds of appeal regarding incidence of du....