2021 (7) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revenue's appeal holding that the appellant was required to pay 10% separately over and above 7.5% towards pre-deposit in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act. Accordingly, allowed the revenue's appeal setting aside the order of original authority whereby the refund was allowed. The appellant filed Appeals no C/12122/2018 and C/12123/2018 against the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority wherein the said authority has upheld the appropriation of the refund of Rs. 1,99,97,500 sanctioned to the appellant against the sanctioned drawback claims covered in Order-in-Originals dated 17.04.2007 2. Shri Vishal Agarwal, Learned Counsel along with Shri Vipin Jain, Shri Roshil Nichani and Shri Abhishek Kapadia, Learned Advocate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icated. We would also quash the circular dated 27th April, 2017 issued by the Tribunal. It is directed that the petitioner and others on filing second appeal before the Tribunal are required to deposit 10% of the amount of duty/ penalty as confirmed by the first appellate authority inclusive of 7.5% pre-deposit made for the first appeal. 10% would not be in addition to and over and above 7.5% of pre deposit made for the first appeal. However, contention that Section 35F of the C.E. Act does not apply to service tax appeals and therefore no pre-deposit is required to be made is rejected. In the facts of the case there would be no order as to costs." 4.1 In view of the above judgment of Delhi High Court and appeal before the CESTAT in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....result of the sanctioned of refund of pre- deposit. 4.4. We find that the said adjustment is consequential to the above case in appeal no C/12124/2018. We find that since we have disposed of the said appeal the consequential effect needs to be given in case of C/12122/2018 and C/12123/2018. 5. Accordingly, the impugned orders in case of C/12122/2018 and C/12123/2018 are modified and the said appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority to decide a fresh only on the aspect of adjustment of sanctioned refund against drawback claim already sanctioned in the light of order passed in Appeal No C/12124/2018. (Order pronounced in the open court on 16.07.2021) ============= Document 1 EXHIBIT-J' 90 17th Apr....