2023 (7) TMI 1308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Sales Tax paid to the State Government by the appellant was recovered under the head of 'Other Charges'. The audit has raised objection that the said sales tax paid as other charges is includible in the assessable value and at the behest of the audit, the appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 2,56,93,502/- vide TR-6 challan No. 3130/003 dated 08.06.2005 and informed to the department vide their letter dated 09.02.2005. The appellant were issued show cause notice dated 02.08.2006 wherein it was proposed to demand interest on the said amount under Section 11AB. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of interest vide order-in-original No. 2/AC/2008 dated 19.02.2008. In appeal filed by the appellant the Commissioner (Appeals) by order-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f any suppression on the part of appellant. The department's appeal (CA No. D-3551 of 2012) against Tribunal's said order dated 29.09.2011 has been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is pending. The appellant in respect of their unit at Sidhpur, based on the decision of the Tribunal in their favour, filed refund claim for Rs. 2,56,93,502/- vide their letter dated 05.05.2012. The department by notice to show cause notice dated 16.10.2012 the said refund claim was proposed to be rejected inter-alia on the ground that claim is barred by limitation. The Deputy Commissioner, Kutch by order-in-original No. 98/2012-13 dated 27.12.2012 rejected the refund claim based on the ground that claim was barred by limitation. The same was upheld by C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ara Energy Limited - CESTAT Order No. A/12562/2021 dated 02.12.2021 4. Shri Tara Prakash, learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that there is no dispute to the fact that it is not the appellant who at their own sou-moto paid the excise duty on the other charges. The said duty was deposited on the behest of department. The matter was further agitated by the appellant of their other unit on merit hence the issue on merit attained finality in favour of the appellant vide Tribunal's order dated 29.09.2011. Firstly the duty was deposited on the behest of department and it is in the nature of payment....