TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... FOB value of the exported goods. The proposed demand as was confirmed vide order in appeal no. 168 dated 27.05.2005 was set aside by the final order of this Tribunal bearing no. 58014 dated 10.10.2013. Along with the said appeal was filed a stay application also which was already decided by the order dated 09.01.2006 holding that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs as has already been deposited by the appellant is sufficient for hearing the appeal. Accordingly, the remaining payment of amount was waived off. Pursuant to the aforesaid final order that the appellant filed the refund claim of the said already deposited amount of Rs.5 lakh, on 14.10.2019. The said refund was initially been rejected vide order in original no. 4962 dated 23.12.2019. The ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. EX Chennai reported as 2017 (346) ELT 72 (Mad), learned Counsel has prayed for the appeal to be allowed. 4. While rebutting the submissions, learned DR has laid emphasis upon the findings of Commissioner (A) precisely in para 7 of the order under challenge. It is submitted that the case law as relied upon by the appellant has duly been distinguished by Commissioner (A) while rejecting the impugned demand. Learned DR further mentioned that the appellant became entitled for the impugned refund pursuant to the final order of this Tribunal dated 10.10.2013. Though the relevant date in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (cc) is the date of the said final order instead of date of deposit. But still the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the appellant but the said order of Departmental authorities stands set aside vide the order of this Tribunal dated 10.10.2013 with no appeal there against by the Department. It becomes crystal clear that the amount in question cannot be called as duty. Since appellant has been held not liable for any amount to be paid to the Department, the amount in question becomes the deposit of the appellant with the Department. 6. Refund claim of the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs (fixed in two bank guarantees initially of Rs. 2.5 lakhs each) has wrongly been denied to be refunded invoking section 11B of Central Excise Act. Perusal of the provision shows that the provision relates to the claim for refund of duty. Once it is clear that the amount in qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 35F of the Act. A circular was rather fixing the time limit on the Department of three months for sanctioning of the refund of pre-deposit amount. Hon'ble High Court of Madras also in the case of Commissioner Central Excise Coimbatore vs. Pricol Ltd. reported as 2015 (39) STR 190 (Mad.) has held as follows: "There are also very many judgments of various Courts, which have also reiterated the same principles that in case any amount is deposited during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation, the said amount would be in the nature of deposit under protest and, therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment would not apply. In view of the catena of decisions, available on this issue, this Court answers the first substa....