TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant Company manufactures steal castings. The principal raw materials for the final product is metal scrap. The factory premises of the appellant was inspected by the Anti-Evasion Wing of the respondent and in pursuance of such an investigation, the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.7.53 Crores to the respondent on various dates. However, the appellant claimed that this payment was made under threat or duress and that, they were not obligated to pay the amount and hence, had filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.2026 of 2013, seeking for refund of the amount of Rs.7.53 Crores. By an order, dated 08.11.2013, a learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition by issuing certain directions, in the following manner: "7. In the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions, if any, along with the documents withing five days. (c)It is further directed that after the submission of the objections and the documents, by the petitioner, the Quasi Judicial Authority shall afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass final adjudication order within a period of one month thereafter. d) It is further directed that subject to the outcome of the final order, the above said sum of Rs. 7.53 crores paid by the petitioner shall be either refunded or adjusted towards the duty, however, subject to the appeal remedy." 3. As against the order of the learned Single Judge, an intra Court appeal was filed in W.A(MD)No.339 of 2014, in which, a coordinate Bench had held that the respondents will ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndents have no business to retain the same. Hence the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the payment was authorised by law has to be stated only to be rejected. 21. The writ appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed, directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.7.53 crores, collected from the appellant. We give a time of four weeks to the respondents to make payment of the amount to the appellant, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents fail to make payment within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondents will become liable to pay interest at 6% per ann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant submitted that the investigation conducted by the respondent itself is premeditated, since the same has not been taken to its logical conclusion and that it is an attempt to justify the earlier arbitrary recovery of Rs.7.53 Crores from M/s.Sanmar. It is also her submission that the show-cause notice itself is a predetermination of the respondent's claim even when the investigations were in progress. 7. The learned standing counsel for the respondent however would submit that the order impugned in the writ petition was only a show-cause notice to which the appellants are at liberty to give their objections and which they had already given. On this basis, the learned counsel submitted that they may be given opportunity to take furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference is ruled out." 10. In the instant case, there is a major flaw, which dispossess the jurisdiction of the respondent in proceeding further with the show-cause notice. As stated earlier, the impugned show-cause notice itself was on the strength of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.2026 of 2013, dated 08.11.2013, wherein the Investigating Authority was called upon to complete the investigation and thereafter, the Commissioner of Central Excise was granted liberty to proceed further with the adjudication after granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant. The consequential action on the part of the Commissioner of Central Excise, to issue the show-cause notice on 29.11.2013, could be termed to be in ac....