2022 (9) TMI 1281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f facts are that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of SS Ingots. Investigation/search was held in the premises of the appellant in December 2002. During the course of investigation, the appellant deposited Rs. 5,76,425/- vide debit in Cenvat account vide entry No. 96 dated 17th December 2002. They have further deposited Rs. 50,000/- vide TR-6 challan on 30th January 2003. These amounts were deposited towards estimated duty on the alleged shortage of finished goods and raw materials. Thereafter, show cause was issued on 13th September 2006 and the proposed demand of Rs. 49,83,391/- was confirmed towards central excise duty, and further Cenvat credit was disallowed for Rs. 64,244/- alongwith equal penalty plus interest. Being aggrieved....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the benefit of protest clause stood vacated when the matter was remanded in the 1st round, vide final order dated 19/09/2016. Thus, the claim of refund of the whole amount of 8.5 lakhs be held to be hit by limitation. 4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide common order-in-appeal dated 11th February 2022 held that the refund of Rs. 8 lakhs have been rightly granted, however, refund of Rs. 50,000/- was held to be time barred and also hit by unjust enrichment, by observing that though the amount has not been paid against invoices, but he finds that raising invoices and collecting the amount of duty is not the only way to pass on the burden. As regards, interest under Section 35FF, it has been held that the appellant is entitled to interes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndvik Asia Ltd (supra). 7. I further find that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE vs Pricol Ltd 2015 (320) ELT 703 have held that any amount deposited during investigation has to be treated as pre-deposit and the same is neither hit by limitation nor by the clause of unjust enrichment for the purpose of refund. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CCE vs Eveready Industries Ltd 2017 (357) ELT 11 and also by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. H.V. Ceramics 2019 (365) ELT 390. 8. In view of aforementioned observations and findings I hold that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is hit by limit....